send_location

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as permission requirements, live location behavior, or whether the message can be edited later. It merely restates the tool's name.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with many parameters. It lacks qualifying details that would make the single sentence more useful, though it has no 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 high parameter count, low schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description is too brief to place the tool in context. It doesn't mention that this is a Telegram message send operation, nor does it explain the significance of live location parameters.

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 15 parameters but only ~20% have descriptions. The description does not explain any of the optional parameters (e.g., live_period, heading, proximity_alert_radius) and fails to compensate for the low schema 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 'Send a point on the map' clearly identifies a send action and the resource (a map point), which distinguishes it from sibling send_* tools like send_photo or send_venue. However, it doesn't explicitly mention sending to a chat or live location capabilities, so it's not fully specific.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_venue (which includes an address) or edit_message_live_location for updating live locations. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints.

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