sendAnimation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that on success the sent Message is returned and that bots can currently send files up to 50 MB, which are useful behavioral facts beyond the bare 'send' action. It does not mention failure behavior or permission requirements, but the disclosed information is substantial.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the return value and the size limit. Every sentence adds useful 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?

For a tool with 21 parameters and no output schema, the description is lean but sufficient: it defines the media type, states the return value, and gives the size cap. The full parameter surface is covered by the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it, though it could add a note about preferring file_id over URL for reliability.

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 21 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the 50 MB size constraint, which relates to the animation parameter, but otherwise provides no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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 and resource: 'Send animation files' and defines exactly what counts as an animation ('GIF or H.264/MPEG-4 AVC video without sound'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sendVideo and sendDocument, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for GIF or silent H.264/MPEG-4 AVC videos, with a 50 MB limit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use sendVideo, but the 'without sound' criterion implies the boundary strongly enough.

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