Send Telegram Video

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add useful context about accepted video sources (local Windows paths and HTTP URLs), but it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, default chatId behavior, or failure modes. This is a moderate disclosure for a send-type tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with the input constraint appended cleanly. There is no redundant wording, fluff, or repetition of schema 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?

The tool is relatively simple, all parameters are documented in the schema, and the description covers the main input constraint. The only gap is that there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns or how errors are reported, but this is not critical for a straightforward send action.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all five parameters clearly. The description adds marginal value with 'local Windows paths' and 'HTTP URLs', but most of this is already present in the video parameter description. This matches the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 names a specific verb ('Send'), a precise resource ('video via Telegram bot'), and adds the supported input forms ('local Windows paths and HTTP URLs'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_telegram_document and send_telegram_photo.

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 this tool is for sending video content rather than documents, photos, or plain messages, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is inferable from the resource type but not directly articulated.

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