send_message

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable parameter-level behavior: schedule_unix for delayed sending, comment_to requiring an enabled discussion group, and clear_draft to clear drafts. This discloses non-obvious side effects without contradicting 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 concise, starting with a one-line summary followed by a compact parameter list. Each parameter gets a brief explanation without fluff. It is longer due to the number of parameters but every line adds value.

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?

Given the 9-parameter complexity and zero schema descriptions, the description covers all parameters and adds important context for non-obvious ones (e.g., comment_to prerequisites, schedule_unix format). An output schema exists, so return values are not the description's responsibility. The tool would be usable with this description alone.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the entire burden. It explains each parameter (chat, text, reply_to, silent, parse_mode, link_preview, schedule_unix, comment_to, clear_draft) with sufficient context, including allowed values and special requirements.

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 opens with 'Отправить текстовое сообщение' (Send text message), a specific verb+resource combination that clearly identifies the action. It distinguishes from siblings like send_file, send_album, and send_voice by explicitly stating the text-message scope.

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 usage for text messages but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like send_file or send_voice. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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