sendAudio

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 adds useful operational constraints: audio must be .MP3 or .M4A, files are limited to 50 MB, and a Message is returned on success. It does not discuss side effects, authorization, or rate limits, but the provided constraints and outcome are substantial and relevant.

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 four sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds format constraints, the success return value, the size limit, and the sibling alternative in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderately complex with 19 parameters, but the schema covers all of them, so the description only needs to add selection guidance and behavioral context. It covers the key decision point (sendAudio vs. sendVoice), return behavior, format requirements, and size limit. It does not mention all optional parameters, but that is already handled by the schema, making the description complete enough for correct invocation.

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 already provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value beyond the schema by specifying the accepted audio formats (.MP3 or .M4A) and the 50 MB size limit, which are not explicitly present in the audio parameter description. This helps the agent validate inputs before calling the tool.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Send audio files'. It further clarifies the purpose by explaining when it is appropriate ('if you want Telegram clients to display them in the music player'), which distinguishes it from voice-message sending. It also clearly names the sibling alternative, sendVoice, so an agent can choose correctly.

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 explicitly states the intended use case ('if you want Telegram clients to display them in the music player') and provides an exclusion: 'For sending voice messages, use the sendVoice method instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, plus the exact alternative.

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