telegram_send_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that audio can be a local path or URL and that the return is a JSON Telegram Message object, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, file size limits, or error behavior. For a mutating send operation, this is a notable gap.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter list and a return line. It is appropriately sized for seven parameters, though a few parameter descriptions are tautological and could be tightened.

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?

The description covers all parameters and the return format, which is helpful given no annotations and no schema descriptions. However, it omits parse_mode allowed values, chat_id format, usage guidance versus sibling tools, and any operational constraints like file size or authentication. It is adequate but not complete for a tool with this many parameters.

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. It adds meaningful semantics for most parameters: audio as local path or HTTP/HTTPS URL, title as track name, performer as artist name, and disable_notification as 'send silently.' Some entries like 'Audio caption' and 'Target chat identifier' are shallow, but overall it covers all seven parameters.

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 an audio file (.mp3, .m4a, etc.) to a chat.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like telegram_send_photo, telegram_send_document, and telegram_send_voice, even without naming them.

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 usage by specifying audio file formats, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over telegram_send_voice or telegram_send_document, nor does it mention exclusions. The intended use is inferable but not directly guided.

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