send_voice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the key format requirement (.OGG/OPUS) beyond the schema, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, size limits, or response behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is perfectly front-loaded and contains no wasted words. The format detail is packed efficiently into the sentence, earning its place by adding critical semantic value.

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 14 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings. The description covers only the core purpose and format, omitting return value, behavioral notes, and context for the many undocumented parameters. The minimal description is inadequate for this complexity level.

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 exactly 50%, with 7 of 14 parameters undocumented (duration, effect_id, protect_content, message_thread_id, allow_paid_broadcast, disable_notification, business_connection_id). The description adds meaningful format context for the voice parameter, but does not compensate for the half of the parameters lacking schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Send a voice message') and adds the distinctive format constraint (.OGG encoded with OPUS), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like send_audio and send_video_note. This is a precise, unambiguous statement of purpose.

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_audio, send_video_note, or send_document. The description implies usage for voice messages but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision context, which is a significant gap given the large set of send_* siblings.

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