send_gift

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

Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive, but the description adds only the recipient scope. It fails to disclose that sending a gift likely consumes it, requires a valid gift_id, or that text and pay_for_upgrade options affect the transaction.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. It is concise at the expense of necessary detail, so it isn't appropriately sized.

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 no output schema, low schema coverage, and only 11 words, the description leaves out prerequisites (e.g., gift availability), return behavior, and error handling. The sibling tools hint at a larger gift workflow, but this description doesn't connect to that context.

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 only 29%, and the description compensates minimally. It hints at user/channel targeting via 'to a user or channel chat', but leaves gift_id (required), text, pay_for_upgrade, text_parse_mode, and text_entities unexplained.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Send' with resource 'gift' and target 'to a user or channel chat', clearly distinguishing it from sibling send_* tools and other gift-related tools like transfer_gift or gift_premium_subscription.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like fetching available gifts via get_available_gifts, nor does it contrast with related tools such as transfer_gift or gift_premium_subscription.

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