telegram_send_document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation without destruction. The description adds that the tool accepts local path, URL, or file_id, and returns a JSON with the sent Message object or error. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but no mention of permissions or side effects.

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 4 sentences and front-loaded with purpose. The 'Args' line is somewhat redundant given the schema, but overall it is concise and does not waste words. Could be slightly more streamlined by removing the args 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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, input sources, and return format. The output schema is implied by the description of the return value. No gaps remain for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it produces.

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 input schema has detailed descriptions for chat_id, document, caption, and parse_mode. The tool's description only mentions 'params (SendDocumentInput): chat_id, document source, optional caption,' which adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 any file (document) to a Telegram chat') and specifies the resource (Telegram chat). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_photo/send_video by saying 'any file type that doesn't fit photo/video/audio.' This provides specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (PDFs, ZIPs, code files, etc.) and implicitly when not to use it (photo/video/audio types). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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