sendSticker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the success return value (the sent Message) and the accepted formats, but does not mention that this is a side-effecting action visible in a chat, any failure modes, or auth/business-connection expectations implied by parameters like business_connection_id.

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 zero filler: the first states the action and valid formats, the second covers the return value. Essential information is front-loaded and every word 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?

With no output schema present, disclosing 'Returns the sent Message on success' is valuable and covers the return contract. Given 12 parameters but 100% schema coverage, the description addresses what structured data lacks; the main remaining gap is usage differentiation among the large sibling set, which is already penalized in usage_guidelines.

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 the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds modest value by clarifying the accepted file formats for the sticker parameter, but otherwise does not go beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (stickers) with concrete format specifics (.WEBP, .TGS, .WEBM) that clarify what content types are accepted. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling content-sending tools like sendDocument or sendPhoto, which could also carry sticker files, so differentiation is partially left to inference.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose sendSticker over the many sibling send* and sticker-management tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are mentioned; the appropriate use case is only implied by the tool name and the format list.

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