send_sticker_by_id

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the action implied by the name. It adds a detail about access_hash sourcing, but annotations already convey mutating status (readOnlyHint=false). No rate limits, auth requirements, return behavior, or side effects are mentioned. There is no contradiction.

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 and well-structured, with a heading and a clear args list. Every piece of information is useful and front-loaded.

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 tool with six parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description covers only three parameters and skips the essential chat destination as well as optional silent/reply_to. The returned output is not discussed (though output schema exists). The description is insufficient for correct invocation without additional inference.

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 description explains document_id as the sticker document identifier, access_hash as the set's access hash, and sticker_set_short_name as the source set's short name, adding meaning. However, it omits chat, silent, and reply_to parameters, and with 0% schema coverage, those remain unexplained.

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 starts with 'Отправить стикер по document_id' (Send sticker by document_id), clearly specifying the action, resource, and method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_file and send_media.

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 instruction 'получи через get_sticker_set' (get via get_sticker_set) identifies the source for the required identifier, providing a prerequisite. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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