tg_send

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent action. The description adds useful behavioral context: the message is visible to the recipient immediately, and user confirmation is required before sending. This goes beyond the raw annotation flags without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a key user-confirmation instruction, and a concise Args list. Every sentence earns its place and no redundant details are included.

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 text-send tool, the description covers the action, parameter semantics, and safety guidance. It does not return an output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns, but that is not essential for invoking it correctly. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit note about not being for media files, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description documents all four parameters meaningfully: chat accepts id, @username, title, or 'me'; text has a 4096-character limit; reply_to targets a message id; silent suppresses notifications. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Send a message as the user.' It also clarifies immediate visibility, which distinguishes it from draft, scheduled, or file-related siblings. The name and description together make it clear this is a direct text-message sending tool.

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 an explicit usage boundary: confirm exact chat and wording before calling unless already approved. This provides clear judgment guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tg_send_file or tg_schedule, so it falls just short of a 5.

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