Send message

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), description reveals critical behaviors: draft preview step, confirmation token requirement, irreversibility, consistency checks on confirm (chat, text, mentions order, forward_from, reply_to_message_id). This adds substantial transparency about tool operation and side effects.

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?

Single dense paragraph exceptionally efficient: front-loads the two-step behavior, then covers each parameter's role in the workflow. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite no output schema and 7 complex parameters, description covers all key aspects: the two-step workflow, parameter interactions, validation rules on confirm, and side effects. Provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly and understand behavior.

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 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, but description adds extensive semantics: explains chat resolution (ChatId or search query), mentions behavior difference between draft and confirm, forward_from as forwarding without quote, reply_to_message_id with quote behavior. This goes far beyond the schema's minimal descriptions, making parameter meanings clear.

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?

Description clearly states it sends a text message in a two-step process: draft preview without confirm, then irreversible send with confirm. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_file (file sending) and edit_message (editing), establishing a clear purpose.

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?

Describes the two-step workflow and that sending is irreversible, guiding careful use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_file for files. The sibling context suggests differentiation, but the description lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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