send_local_video

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says the video will be rendered in an inline player with streaming. It omits file existence/format validation, size limits, what happens when chat_id is null, and whether anything is mutated in the target chat. The 'streaming' detail is useful but leaves the safety and failure profile largely undisclosed.

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 bilingual sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The Chinese line largely restates the English one, which is reasonable for a bilingual audience but does not add 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?

With an output schema present the return values need not be explained, but for an 8-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description should at minimum cover the meaning of chat_id, caption, and the dimension/duration hints. As written, an agent would have to guess at most parameters.

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% across 8 parameters, so the schema itself explains almost nothing beyond titles. The description only implicitly covers video_path ('local video file') and supports_streaming ('streaming'); caption, chat_id, width, height, duration, and inline_buttons receive no explanation at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Send a local video file (MP4, etc.)') and states the presentation form ('playable streaming video'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like send_text_message or send_poll. It does not, however, explain why an agent would choose this over send_local_document for the same file, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over send_local_document (which can also carry video files) or send_media_album for batches. No prerequisites, target-chat expectations, or exclusions are stated. The usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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