tg_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the message is sent as the user, is immediately visible, and requires prior user confirmation. It also specifies the 4096-char limit. It does not cover error behavior or reversibility, but covers key behavioral traits for a send action.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by a critical safety instruction, then a concise parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a four-parameter send tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action, parameter formats, and the user-confirmation requirement. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing to inspect output schema or infer hidden semantics.

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 has zero descriptions, and the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: accepted chat identifiers, text length limit, reply_to semantics, and silent behavior. This goes far beyond the schema's type and title info.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Send a message as the user' and notes immediate visibility, clearly distinguishing from siblings like tg_schedule and tg_send_file. The resource (message) and scope (as user) are explicit.

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 clear context that this is for immediate message sending and includes a user-confirmation requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use tg_schedule for scheduled messages'), so it 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.