send_code_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and intended use case. It does not mention whether the notification is asynchronous, whether failures are handled, or any side effects beyond sending. Since this is a send operation, a simple notification may not require extensive disclosure, but the lack of any behavioral context beyond the action itself is a notable gap.

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, tightly worded sentence that conveys purpose and usage guidance without wasting words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it immediately scannable. Excellent conciseness.

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 is simple with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and timing, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, without annotations or any note on return behavior or failure modes, an agent might not know what to expect after calling. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters (summary, file_path, change_type, diff_preview), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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'), the resource ('code update notification'), and the target ('Telegram'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_telegram_message by specifying 'code update', making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 explicit timing guidance ('Use after making significant code changes to inform the user'), which clarifies when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over general messaging tools.

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