send_text_message

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does not meet it. It does not explain what happens when chat_id is null, whether the message is delivered to a default chat, permission or rate-limit constraints, or that this is a mutating operation that creates a new message rather than updating one. The listed features largely restate schema parameter names with friendlier wording rather than adding behavioral context.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, leading with the action and then the capability list. The English sentence and its Chinese translation are duplicative in content, but the bilingual form appears intentional for locale support and does not add bloat.

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?

That score is too generous: with nine parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves key invocation details unresolved, including the meaning of a null chat_id and the semantics of the keyboard toggles. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input-side gaps make the definition insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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% for nine parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: "silent mode" maps loosely to disable_notification and "protection" to protect_content, but chat_id, remove_keyboard, one_time_keyboard (default true), parse_mode defaults, and the reply_keyboard/remove_keyboard interaction are all left unexplained. Only the nested InlineButton fields carry schema descriptions.

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 definition states a specific verb and resource ("Send text messages") and enumerates the supported capabilities: Markdown/HTML formatting, silent mode, content protection, inline buttons, and reply keyboards. It implicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as send_local_photo or send_poll by restricting the resource to text, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings. In particular, nothing distinguishes it from edit_message_text or explains whether sending to a chat that already has a message creates a new one. The only implied guidance is the tool name itself.

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