telegram_send_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key constraint of 50MB max file size, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or return behavior. For a simple send operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Send any file/document') and immediately follow with usage guidance. No wasted words, every sentence contributes.

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 a straightforward send tool with two parameters, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and a critical size constraint. No output schema exists, but none is needed for this simple action.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying the 50MB max file size, which applies to the document_path parameter and is not present in the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Send any file/document') and the target resource ('configured Telegram chat'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling photo/video tools by specifying 'for files that are not photos or videos', making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use this for files that are not photos or videos', which implies exclusions for photo/video senders. However, it doesn't name the alternative sibling tools directly, so it lacks full explicit alternatie guidance.

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