telegram_send_video

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

The description mentions the return format (JSON with Message object or error), which adds some behavioral context. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. However, the description does not disclose additional traits such as permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 very concise, using a single sentence for purpose followed by a bullet-point-like summary. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently covers input types and return value without wasted words.

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 (sending a video with optional parameters), the description covers the essentials: purpose, accepted input sources, parameter list, and return format. It is slightly incomplete in that it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., bot token, chat permissions), but those are likely implied by the context of Telegram tools.

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 summarizes parameters as 'chat_id, video source, optional caption, dimensions', but this adds minimal value over the input schema, which already contains detailed descriptions for each parameter. Since the schema coverage is effectively complete, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 a video') and the target resource ('to a Telegram chat'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying 'video' as the media type. It also lists the accepted input sources (file path, URL, file_id), which adds further clarity.

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 implicitly indicates use for sending videos, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like telegram_send_audio or telegram_send_document. No when-not-to-use information is given, and there is no contrast with sibling tools, which would be helpful given the many sibling send tools.

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