Send Text Message to Telegram Chat

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the operational requirement TELEGRAM_SEND_ENABLED=true, which is not inferable from the schema. It also reinforces the mutation nature. While it does not detail side effects like duplicate delivery on retries, the existing annotations and output schema reduce that burden.

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 compact: two sentences that state the core action, the prerequisite, and the primary alternative. Every sentence adds distinct value and the most important information 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 four-parameter mutation tool with a full output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation needs: what it sends, where it sends, the required environment flag, and the sibling to use for replies. It does not mention sending files, but the 'text message' scope already implies `send_file` is for non-text media.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already well documented. The description's 'text message' phrasing aligns with the `message` parameter but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter-semantic weight.

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') with a clear resource ('text message') and target scope ('Telegram chat, group, channel, or user'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling `reply_to_message` by explicitly directing replying use cases away, making the tool's role 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 concrete usage context: it is a mutation, requires TELEGRAM_SEND_ENABLED=true, and explicitly tells the agent to prefer `reply_to_message` when replying to an existing message. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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