telegram_send_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the 4096-character rejection limit and the supported parse modes, but says nothing about rate limits, error behavior, or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then capabilities, then a hard constraint that prevents a failure mode. No filler.

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 simple three-parameter send tool with annotations and a full-coverage schema, the description plus structured fields give an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only rate-limit/error and return-value expectations are absent, which is minor for a mutation with no output schema.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the escape rules for MarkdownV2 and the default chat_id fallback. The description reinforces the length constraint on text but adds no new per-parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ("Send a text message to a Telegram chat") and the word "text" implicitly distinguishes it from telegram_send_photo and telegram_send_file. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Sending a text message is the obvious implied use case, and the 4096-character note implies "split instead of calling this." But there is no explicit routing to alternatives (send_photo/send_file) or statement of prerequisites such as needing a valid chat_id or bot permissions.

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