send_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the bridge converts to .m4a if needed, and file_path is read on the bridge host (not the caller). It does not cover failure modes, permissions, or subscription prerequisites beyond the implicit 'sole subscribed target' hint.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior in the first sentence and uses the Args block efficiently to document the two parameters. Slightly boilerplate formatting but no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a 2-param tool the description covers purpose, host-side path semantics, format conversion, and target resolution adequately; only error/permission behavior is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains file_path is resolved on the bridge host and that `to` is a chat alias that can be omitted to target the sole subscribed chat. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema field names and default.

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?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (audio file delivered as a voice message), which is more precise than the generic sibling send_file. The conversion note further distinguishes it from a plain file send. It does not explicitly name its siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is for audio/voice versus send_file or share_media on its own, which is exactly the choice that needs guidance.

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