send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'send' which implies a mutation, but it does not describe any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a write operation without annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no filler. The core action is immediately clear, and every word contributes to the purpose. It is optimally concise 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?

Given the tool is a simple send operation with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic intent. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites (like obtaining chat_id from get_chats), error handling, or response behavior, which would be expected given the absence of annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (body, type, chat_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Отправить' = send) and resource ('сообщение в чат' = message to a chat), which clearly states the action and target. It distinguishes this tool from sibling read operations like get_messages and get_chats, so an agent can infer its purpose without opening the schema.

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 usage: when you need to send a message, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, nor does it reference related tools like get_chats to obtain the required chat_id. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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