messages_send_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/world-reach profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful behavioral instruction to state what will happen and obtain user confirmation before sending, but the 'deletes, or redirects data' phrasing is generic boilerplate that does not accurately describe a send operation and adds little beyond the 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 short and front-loads the send action, which is good. However, the second sentence is templated safety boilerplate that consumes space without earning it, and the transport triple at the end (POST/gRPC/socket) is only marginally useful.

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?

For a destructive, open-world send tool with 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a required nested location object, the description omits the addressing model (chat vs channel vs contact vs phone/username), the required latitude/longitude, and the reply/metadata semantics. An agent cannot determine how to correctly target the message from this definition.

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% across 8 parameters, and the description only clarifies the nested location fields (name/address implying a venue). The other six parameters — chatId, channelId, contactId, phoneNumber, username, replyToMessageId, metadata — and the required latitude/longitude are left entirely to the bare schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first clause gives a specific verb and resource — 'Send a location' — and even distinguishes the venue variant when name/address are supplied, which separates it from the generic messages_send sibling. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 guidance on when to choose this over messages_send, messages_send_contact, or messages_send_event, nor on required prerequisites like having a valid channelId or targeting a chat. The only directional sentence is a generic safety reminder, not usage selection guidance.

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