send_message

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates parameter meanings (parse_mode, reply_to, silent); it does not mention side effects of sending, authentication requirements, chat membership prerequisites, failure modes, or the default link-preview behavior. An agent cannot predict what will happen beyond 'a message is sent'.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, then succinctly clarifies three key parameters. It earns its place, though a bulleted list or one sentence on remaining options would make it slightly easier to scan.

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 send operation with an output schema present, the description is minimally viable: an agent knows it sends text and understands the three most ambiguous parameters. However, it lacks any mention of link_preview, destination requirements, or behavioral side effects, and the absence of annotations amplifies these gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: parse_mode allowed values (md|html|none), reply_to as a message id, and silent as disabling notification sound. This goes beyond the bare titles/defaults in the schema, though link_preview and the exact chat/text formats are left unexplained.

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 'Отправить текстовое сообщение' ('Send a text message'), a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like send_file, forward_messages, and edit_message. It identifies both the action and the message type without ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it never names send_file, forward_messages, or edit_message, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied context is via the word 'text', which is too weak to count as real usage guidance.

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