send_text

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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: raw Telegram HTML tags, the prohibition on encoding tags, the 4096-character limit, and preset semantics. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, open-world operation, so no contradiction; the description enriches understanding of the operation's constraints.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and moves to actionable formatting rules. Each sentence provides needed guidance (tag list, encoding warning, preset definitions, character limit) without excessive verbosity.

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 9-parameter tool, the description is incomplete: it explains formatting and preset choices but not the meaning or constraints of provenance fields (project, subject, agent, model, route, reference) or how they relate to the message. It also omits side-effect details beyond the Telegram limit. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value gaps but does not cover parameter semantics.

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%, yet the description only elaborates on format and preset (e.g., 'brief is the default,' 'standard adds necessary context'). It leaves project, subject, agent, model, route, and reference undefined, relying on names alone. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a formatted message with provenance metadata,' which clearly states the tool's function. The detailed formatting and preset guidance further clarifies scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_update or send_client_copy.

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 concrete usage guidance for format and presets: 'Prefer format="html" for human-facing text,' defines brief/standard/detailed, and warns against encoded tags. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like send_update or send_file, leaving tool selection implied rather than explicit.

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