Send message

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

Annotations provide openWorldHint and destructiveHint, but the description goes further by disclosing specific behaviors: parse_mode dialects auto-detected, file attachments treated as captions, automatic posting in linked discussion groups for channel replies, and detailed success/error dict structures. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations and aligns with destructiveHint.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, parameter nuances, file behavior, channel posting, return values, and alternatives in a compact paragraph. The optional documentation link is a minor extra that doesn't detract.

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?

The description is fully complete for a 5-parameter tool with complex interactions: it explains parse_mode variants, reply_to scenarios, file handling, and success/error formats. The output schema exists, but the description redundantly specifies return fields (message_id, date, chat, etc.) and also covers edge cases like rich messages.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter docs, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., files make message a caption, parse_mode=rich cannot combine with files) and the return payload structure, though much is redundant with 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 description clearly states 'Send text and optional file attachments to a Telegram chat' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives like edit_message and send_message_to_phone, and includes detailed context about reply-to behavior and channel discussion groups.

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 description offers explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use send_message to create new messages; use edit_message to modify existing ones' and 'Use send_message_to_phone when targeting a phone number instead of a chat_id.' It also clarifies constraints like parse_mode=rich not combinable with files and channel post behavior.

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