tg_send_location

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The phrase 'as the user' adds some behavioral context about identity/authorization beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose side effects, return behavior, or permission 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 a single efficient sentence with no filler; the core action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and no unnecessary 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 three-parameter send action with no output schema, the description plus schema conveys the core operation. However, it leaves the meaning of 'chat', side effects, and the distinction from other send tools implicit, so it is adequate but not fully 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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the three parameters. 'latitude' and 'longitude' are somewhat self-explanatory by name, but 'chat' is ambiguous and no format or precision is specified.

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') and resource ('location pin'), and adds the useful 'as the user' scope. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tg_send or tg_send_file.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The intended usage must be inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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