send_video_note

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: it specifies the input format (.mp4), automatic conversion to a round video, and hard limits (≤60s, 384px diameter). This is useful context that helps the agent anticipate constraints, though it does not mention error handling or permission requirements.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraints. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core concept but omits operational details such as file path prerequisites, failure modes, or how the output schema is populated. It is minimally adequate, but leaves room for ambiguity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate for undocumented parameters, but it only mentions video constraints and ignores 'chat', 'file_path', 'silent', 'reply_to', and 'duration_seconds'. While parameter names are partially self-explanatory, key semantics like how 'duration_seconds' interacts with the 60s limit 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 clearly states the action ('send') and the specific resource ('video-note'), and adds precise technical constraints (.mp4 input → round video ≤60s, 384px diameter). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_file or send_voice.

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 this tool is for sending video notes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like send_file or send_voice. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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