sendLocation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the return behavior ('On success, the sent Message is returned') and the special live-location capability. However, it does not disclose the live-location lifecycle — that a live location requires live_period, can only be updated via editMessageLiveLocation, and must be stopped via stopMessageLiveLocation — nor any failure behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and each sentence adds distinct information (action, return value, live-location support). No wasted words, though the phrasing could be polished.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is thin. It does state the return type, partially compensating for the missing output schema, but it omits the operational model of live locations (duration bounds, one live location per chat, need for subsequent edit/stop calls) and offers no help choosing among the many send* siblings. An agent would need external knowledge to use it correctly in live-location scenarios.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all 17 parameters thoroughly. The description adds only marginal parameter context: the live-location sentence gestures at live_period, heading, and proximity_alert_radius semantics but provides no concrete detail. This is acceptable because the schema carries the load.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Send point on the map' — which clearly identifies this as a location-sending operation, distinct from siblings like sendVenue (venue with address details) or sendMessage (text). The mention of live locations adds scope definition. Minor grammatical awkwardness ('point' rather than 'a point') but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sendVenue, sendMessage, or editMessageLiveLocation. The live-location sentence implies a relationship to editMessageLiveLocation and stopMessageLiveLocation, but the workflow is never stated explicitly, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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