send_video_note

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, lowering the baseline. The description adds the constraint 'max 1 minute', which is useful behavioral context about media limits. However, it does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or other behavioral nuances beyond what annotations provide.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and adds a clarifying parenthetical without redundancy.

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?

Despite having 13 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description is extremely brief. It does not mention required parameters, return behavior, or common optional fields. For a complex send operation, this is insufficient for an agent to handle edge cases or understand side effects.

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 38%, and the description does not compensate for the 8 undocumented parameters. It only hints at the duration limit via 'max 1 minute', but does not explain parameters like thumbnail, effect_id, or reply_markup. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly use the full parameter set.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Send a video note' with the clarifying parenthetical '(round video message, max 1 minute)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like send_video and send_voice by specifying the unique media format.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for round video messages) and implies not to use it for regular videos. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like send_video, though the mention of 'round video message' is sufficient for basic differentiation.

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