sendGift

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the gift cannot be converted to Stars and that True is returned on success, but it does not mention potential costs, balance requirements, or other side effects of sending a gift.

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 sentences are used to convey the action, target, key restriction, and return value. There is no filler, and the most important information appears first.

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 seven-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, target, a behavioral restriction, and the success return, while the schema covers all parameters. It could note the cost/balance implication, but nothing essential to invoking the API correctly is missing.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail, which aligns with the baseline expectation for full 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 clearly identifies the action ('Sends a gift'), the target ('user or channel chat'), and a distinctive consequence (the recipient cannot convert it to Telegram Stars). This separates it from related gift tools like convertGiftToStars or upgradeGift.

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 recipient scope is clear, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use sendGift versus related gift actions such as transferGift, upgradeGift, or giftPremiumSubscription. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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