Send message

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: return format (success dict with message_id/status='sent', error dict with ok=false), channel post auto-reply behavior, parsing dialect auto-detection, and mode-specific file constraints (local paths stdio only, data URIs everywhere). No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence provides distinct information and it front-loads the core purpose. It could benefit from bullet points, but for the tool's complexity the length is justified.

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 covers purpose, alternatives, parameter interactions, return values, error handling, and links to full documentation. With a rich output schema and detailed parameter docs, nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics, such as files turning the message into a caption and reply_to_id triggering automatic posting in channel discussion groups, which goes beyond the schema's per-field 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 opens with 'Send text and optional file attachments to a Telegram chat,' a specific verb+resource statement. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly pointing to edit_message for modifications and send_message_to_phone for phone targets.

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?

It provides explicit direction: 'Use send_message to create new messages; use edit_message to modify existing ones. Use send_message_to_phone when targeting a phone number instead of a chat_id.' It also details when to use reply_to and parse_mode options, including the limitation that rich mode cannot be combined with files.

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