send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It describes parameters and return type but omits behaviors like error handling, rate limits, permission requirements, or what happens if chat_id 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?

Structured as a docstring with Args and Returns, no fluff. Every sentence provides necessary information. Front-loaded with purpose, parameter list, and return summary.

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?

Covers essential parameters and return type given an output schema exists. Lacks situational context like error conditions, character limits on text, or idempotency guarantees. Adequate for a straightforward sending tool but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so description compensates thoroughly. It details each parameter: chat_id, text, reply_to_message_id (optional), quote_text (only used with reply_to_message_id). Adds dependency constraint and optionality beyond 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 'Send a message to a chat' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_group_chat or upload_file_to_chat by focusing on sending a plain text message to an existing chat.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_conversation_thread or reply-oriented tools. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., user must be a member of the chat) or when to prefer it over other messaging functions.

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