Bot: send message

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: text is rendered as Markdown, delivery fails unless the recipient has started the bot, and there is a human-confirmation expectation before sending. It stops short of describing failure modes or delivery semantics in detail.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the user-confirmation warning, with the workflow and precondition detail following. Every sentence carries actionable information with no padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers what the schema and annotations cannot: Markdown rendering of the message body, the /start precondition, the confirmation requirement, and the button/wait_for_reply workflow. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that all text is formatted as Markdown, which affects how the 'text' argument should be authored, and by clarifying the message_id handoff used with reply_to_message_id and bot_wait_for_reply.

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 ('Send a text message from the bot') and immediately clarifies it is a real, externally visible send. This cleanly separates it from siblings like bot_send_file, bot_edit_message, and bot_delete_message.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (the recipient must have sent /start, or the bot must be in the group/channel) and an explicit routing rule to the alternative: to get an answer, send the message then call bot_wait_for_reply with the returned message_id. It also warns to confirm recipient and text with the user before calling.

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