send_animation

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds format constraints but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as required permissions, file size limits, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, which is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 18 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It adequately covers the basic purpose and format, but it does not explain return values, typical use cases, or the role of many optional parameters. This is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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 only 44%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It does not even mention the key required parameters (chat_id, animation) beyond what is in the schema. It adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 tool sends an animation, with specific format constraints (GIF or H.264/MPEG-4 AVC video without sound). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_video (which typically sends video with sound) and send_photo.

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 context by specifying 'without sound', suggesting that send_video would be for videos with sound, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or alternative guidance. There is no explicit exclusion or reference to sibling tools.

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