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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the edit is recipient-visible and Telegram marks the message as edited, which tells the agent the change is externally observable and irreversible in appearance. It does not discuss permission requirements or failure modes.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then the constraint, with no filler or redundancy. Every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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?

No output schema exists, and the annotations plus description together cover the safety profile and the observable effect of the edit, which is sufficient for a three-parameter mutation tool. Minor gaps remain around what happens on invalid or too-old message IDs, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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% with three well-documented parameters, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the ownership constraint on message_id ('the user's own already-sent messages') but adds no format, length, or ID-resolution detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rewrite one of the user's own already-sent messages') and immediately scopes it to the user's own sent messages, which cleanly separates it from telegram_send_message (new messages) and telegram_get_messages (reads). An agent can identify the operation and its boundary without opening the schema.

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?

'Incoming messages cannot be edited' is an explicit when-not condition, which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., send a new message or reply via telegram_bot_dm_reply) for the case where editing is not possible, so the guidance stops short of full alternative-routing.

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