send_media

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that media type is auto-deduced from the file extension and that as_voice_note changes delivery mode, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or side effects.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the core action and enumerates the media types without waste. Nothing extraneous and no buried detail.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the media-type mapping and voice-note flag. However, for a six-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage, chat target, caption, reply_to and account are left entirely unaddressed, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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 coverage is only 33% (chat, caption, reply_to, account are undocumented), so the description should compensate more than it does. It touches the type-from-extension logic and as_voice_note semantics, but both largely echo the path and as_voice_note schema descriptions, leaving the other four parameters unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ('Envoie') and resource ('fichier local') and enumerates the media types handled (image, vidéo, audio, document, message vocal), clearly separating it from send_message, send_location and send_poll. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but relies on inference for differentiation.

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 implies the use case (sending a local file) but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives like send_message or get_media. The only conditional statement, as_voice_note for OGG Opus, is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance.

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