telegram_send_voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the primary effect (sending a voice note), the required encoding (.ogg OPUS), and the return format, but it does not mention failure conditions, file size limits, permissions, or what happens when chat_id is omitted. This is sufficient for a simple call but leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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-organized: a single purpose line, a per-parameter bulleted list, and a return line. There is no redundant or filler content; each sentence adds necessary information.

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 and the return type are covered, which is good for a send operation. However, the schema marks chat_id as optional with a null default, and the description does not clarify how the tool behaves without a chat_id or whether a default chat is used. It also fails to differentiate from telegram_send_audio, leaving room for incorrect tool selection.

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%, yet the description explains every parameter with meaningful detail: voice accepts a local path or HTTP/HTTPS URL, disable_notification means 'send silently', and parse_mode is tied to the caption. This goes well beyond the bare type/title data in the schema.

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 action and resource: 'Send a voice note (.ogg encoded with OPUS) to a chat.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like telegram_send_audio and telegram_send_photo, and the encoding requirement pins down exactly what kind of media is handled.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as telegram_send_audio or telegram_send_document. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and the one-line purpose, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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