telegram_send_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions the 50MB constraint and supported formats, but does not detail behavior like error handling, upload mechanics, or whether the destination chat is fixed. It adds some useful context but leaves gaps.

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 deliver the purpose, supported formats, and size limit without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational constraints (path, optional caption, formats, size limit). It does not explain response behavior or errors, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters (video_path and caption) with clear descriptions, so the schema coverage is high at 100%. The description adds only the file format and size context, not additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('video file to the configured Telegram chat'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like telegram_send_photo and telegram_send_document by specifying video file types and the 50MB size limit.

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?

It clearly indicates this tool is for sending video files, listing supported formats and a size cap, which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intent is unambiguous for the stated file type.

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