Send a location

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

Annotations already declare this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) reaching outside the system (openWorldHint=true). The description adds that delivery is immediate, implying no scheduling or draft state, but says nothing about permission requirements, rate limits, or failure modes for an invalid chat. That is a modest but real addition beyond the 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and unit clarifications following. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, coordinate units, and immediacy. It still leaves the chat identifier format and replyTo semantics unexplained, which are gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and partially meets it: it clarifies units for lat/long (decimal degrees) and accuracy (metres), which the schema only bounds numerically. However, the required 'chat' parameter's accepted format (ID vs username vs phone) and the meaning of 'replyTo' are left completely undefined.

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 verb and resource ('Send a geographic point to a chat'), which clearly separates it from siblings like telegram_send_contact or telegram_send_photo. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous enough that an agent can route correctly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no note on prerequisites (e.g. membership in the target chat), and no comparison to alternatives such as telegram_send_contact or telegram_send_message with a map link. 'Sends immediately' is the only contextual cue and it is not framed as usage guidance.

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