Отправить файл собеседнику

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the 20 MiB size ceiling and that delivery failures surface in the response, but it discloses nothing about permissions, take-over behavior, or side effects.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the size limit and the error-visibility note. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, a hard operational limit, and error surfacing — enough for an agent to call it correctly. It stops short of describing return values, formatting behavior, or the take-over default's consequences, which keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, so every parameter (case, dialog, caption, file_path, take_over, parse_mode, content_type) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Отправляет локальный файл"), adds the acting identity ("от имени бота"), and a hard constraint ("до 20 МиБ"). This clearly distinguishes it from text-oriented siblings like dialogs_reply and from dialogs_download_attachment, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and resource: an agent can infer this is the tool for sending a local file into a dialog. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over dialogs_reply or any sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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