send_message

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about delivery semantics, idempotency, what happens with an invalid or disallowed chat_id, rate limits, or permissions. The only behavioral hint is the default-chat fallback for an omitted chat_id.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the parameter constraint follows immediately.

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 simple (one required string, one optional target) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Combined with the chat_id resolution pointer, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it, leaving only error-path behavior unstated.

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 handles chat_id well (allowed id or name, resolution via list_access, null default = default chat) but says nothing about text beyond the verb "send" — no formatting, escaping, or length constraints.

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?

"Send a text message" names a specific verb and resource, and the word "text" implicitly separates it from send_photo and send_document. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells you how to address a chat (allowed id or name, see list_access, omitted = default chat) but never states when to pick this tool over send_photo/send_document or what preconditions must hold. There are no exclusions or alternative routing.

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