send_voice

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already disclose that this is a mutating, non-idempotent, open-world operation that is not destructive. The description usefully adds the required .OGG/OPUS encoding constraint, but it does not explain delivery behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if the source voice file is invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it is arguably too sparse for a tool with such a large parameter surface.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 18-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and many undocumented parameters, one sentence is not enough. It covers the media format but omits routing guidance, parameter usage, and behavioral expectations that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% across 18 parameters, so the description needs to compensate more than it does. It clarifies the encoding expected for the required voice parameter, but adds no meaning for caption, duration, reply_markup, reply_parameters, or the many other advanced parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Send a voice message," and adds the required encoding format (.OGG with OPUS). It does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as send_audio or send_video_note, so an agent still has to infer which send-media tool applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no indication of when not to use it, and no reference to alternative tools. The description leaves routing between send_voice, send_audio, and other media senders entirely unaddressed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.