Send message

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: auto-detected parse_mode, file attachment support (URLs, paths, data URIs), reply-to behavior for forums and channel discussion groups, and the outcome format (success/error dicts). No contradiction with annotations.

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 information-dense but not overly verbose. It front-loads the main action and then logically organizes supporting details. Slightly longer than necessary but efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, enum, multiple modes) and the presence of an output schema that documents return values, the description covers all key behavioral aspects, usage alternatives, and edge cases (channel posts, forum topics). It also references external documentation.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra context, such as the interaction between reply_to_id and channel posts, and file type restrictions. This goes beyond the schema, meriting a score above baseline 3.

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 starts with 'Send text and optional file attachments to a Telegram chat,' clearly stating the action and target. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning edit_message for modifications and send_message_to_phone for targeting phone numbers.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use send_message to create new messages; use edit_message to modify existing ones. Use send_message_to_phone when targeting a phone number instead of a chat_id.' Also explains behavior for channel posts with reply_to_id.

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