tg_send_file

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

Annotations already signal this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutating operation. The description adds useful context such as 'as the user', album behavior for a list of paths, and voice-message behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects beyond sending, failure modes, or authorization requirements.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured as clear argument bullets. Every sentence contributes meaning and there is no repetition of schema defaults or redundant 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?

All parameters are well described and the core behavior is clear, but the description omits usage guidance and return/error/result behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate. For a mutating tool, more context about what happens on success or failure would improve completeness.

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 full parameter documentation. It adds meaning to every parameter: chat is the recipient, path can be a single path or album list, caption attaches text, voice converts audio to voice message, and silent suppresses notifications.

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 states a specific verb ('Send'), a resource ('a local file'), and the acting identity ('as the user'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tg_send, tg_send_sticker, or tg_send_location, and from download/forward tools.

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 guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as the file needing to exist locally or the user needing to be authenticated, and no exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the action itself.

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