send_video

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions source types and default chat, but omits important details like file size limits, supported formats, or that it can send via file_id. This is minimal behavioral information.

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 concise, consisting of two front-loaded sentences that convey the core purpose and a key behavior (default chat). No extraneous information.

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?

The tool has 16 parameters with various options (enums, JSON strings). The description does not address many of these features (e.g., caption, spoiler, reply markup). Without an output schema, the agent may need more context on result handling. The description is incomplete for a complex tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the video parameter can be a URL or local file path, but all other parameters are documented only in the schema. The description does not significantly extend parameter understanding.

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 tool sends a video to a Telegram chat and specifies the sources (URL or local file). It implicitly distinguishes from other media-sending tools like send_photo or send_document, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from send_video_note or send_animation.

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 mentions sending from URL or file path, and the default chat behavior, which provides some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., send_video_note for short clips) or any exclusions.

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