send_message

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important traits beyond the schema: the message is sent as the user's own identity (an externally visible, effectively irreversible action) and it requires prior user review of the text. It omits error behavior, rate limits, and whether delivery is immediate, which matters for a no-annotation mutation 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the action statement is front-loaded ahead of the constraint. The second sentence is terse to the point of being a fragment, but it carries the critical safety rule and earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a side-effecting messaging tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition should say how a chat is identified and what reply_to means; those gaps leave an agent guessing before an irreversible 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It implies that 'text' is the message body, but says nothing about what 'chat' accepts (ID, username, or dialog reference) or what 'reply_to' does, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 specific verb and resource ('Отправляет сообщение') plus the identity under which it acts ('от имени пользователя'). Sibling tools (list_dialogs, sync_chat, read_files, etc.) are all read/sync/ingest operations, so the write nature is implicitly distinguished, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 an explicit precondition for use: the message may only be sent after the user has seen the text, which functions as a human-confirmation gate. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it, but the confirmation condition is a concrete usage rule rather than an implied one.

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