send_video

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

The description adds one behavioral detail: Telegram clients support MPEG4 videos, which is a format constraint. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description does not contradict annotations and provides a small extra context about video format requirements, but omits other behaviors like file size limits or streaming support.

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 concise: two short sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional sentence adds a relevant format detail. Every word serves a purpose, though the description is under-specified overall.

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?

This is a complex tool with 20 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal information. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact. The agent is left under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly, especially for optional parameters and edge cases.

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 40%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, failing to compensate for the gap. It does not explain key parameters like effect_id, has_spoiler, or supports_streaming, so agents have to infer from names or external knowledge.

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 states 'Send a video file', which is a specific verb plus resource. It clearly conveys this tool sends videos, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like send_animation or send_video_note. However, the resource and action are unambiguous enough for basic selection.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_animation, send_video_note, or send_media_group. The note about MPEG4 support is a compatibility hint, not usage context. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or switching conditions.

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