sendVideo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses the format fallback behavior, the 50 MB size cap, and the success return value (sent Message). This goes meaningfully beyond the bare operation. Minor gaps remain (error conditions, permission requirements) but the key operational facts are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose, format caveat, return value and size limit. Every clause earns its place and the core purpose 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?

High complexity (24 params, nested objects) is offset by 100% schema coverage, and the description fills the remaining gaps: the return type (compensating for the missing output schema) and the 50 MB operational limit. A complete enough picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 24 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's format note adds slight context for the video parameter but nothing the schema doesn't largely convey. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource pair ('Send video files') and adds a distinguishing format note (MPEG4 supported, other formats sent as Document) that separates it from sendDocument among a large sibling set. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from adjacent siblings like sendVideoNote, but the core purpose is 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 format caveat ('other formats may be sent as Document') implies a boundary with sendDocument but never explicitly says 'use sendDocument for non-MPEG4 files' or names alternative tools. No when-to-use or prerequisites guidance is provided beyond this implied distinction.

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