telegram_send_message

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

The description explicitly states that the tool 'changes external state', which adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also adds a consent requirement, making the external effect and its preconditions transparent.

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 sentences with no filler; the first identifies the action and scope, and the second adds the critical behavioral guardrail. Every sentence earns its place and the most important operational warning is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter send operation, the description covers the required side effect, the explicit user confirmation prerequisite, and enough parameter meaning to invoke correctly. It does not describe the return value or error conditions, but the tool's simplicity and sibling context make this a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps chat_id to 'recipient chat' and text to 'exact message', which provides some semantic grounding. However, it does not explain how to determine chat_id, mention text length constraints, or clarify expected formats beyond what the parameter names already imply.

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?

States a specific action ('Send text') and a specific resource ('personal Telegram account'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like telegram_send_file and telegram_reply_message. The verb+resource structure leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 an explicit precondition: call only after the user has confirmed both the recipient chat and the exact message. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-to-prefer them, but the confirmation condition gives clear operational guidance.

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