Send message

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

With readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description usefully adds that the send is immediate (no confirmation/draft step) and discloses the return shape (new message id plus sent:true) in the absence of an output schema. It stops short of stating auth requirements or rate limits, so it is not a 5.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and optional/return details follow. Trimmed slightly by 'Full access: sends immediately' being vague rather than informative, but overall efficient.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the send semantics and return value, which is the main thing an agent needs. However, it omits chat addressing (username vs numeric id), the silent flag's behavior, and any auth/permission context—gaps that matter for a 5-parameter write tool.

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% across 5 parameters, so the schema contributes nothing and the description names only replyTo and topicId with no semantics (format, expected values, effect). The required chat and text params and the silent flag are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer chat addressing format and silent behavior.

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+resource (send text message to a chat), which distinguishes it from the many send_* siblings like send_file, send_photo, and send_poll that target non-text payloads. It never explicitly names those alternatives, but the 'text message' qualifier carries the differentiation on its own.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer telegram_send_file or telegram_send_photo over this tool. The 'Full access: sends immediately' line hints at a mode but doesn't state conditions for use.

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