edit_ephemeral_message_text

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's main contribution is the best-effort delivery caveat when the user is offline — a genuinely useful trait not captured by any annotation. It does not say what the caller observes when delivery fails, or that an existing ephemeral_message_id from a prior send is required.

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 short sentences, the identification of the operation is front-loaded, and the caveat follows immediately. No redundant or filler wording.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition is thin: it omits formatting-option semantics, the source of the ephemeral message ID, and any notion of failure reporting beyond 'not guaranteed'. Annotations cover the safety profile, which keeps this from being worse, but an agent still has gaps to infer.

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 75%, near the threshold where the schema carries the load, so a 3 is the baseline. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — notably nothing about how parse_mode interacts with entities, and ephemeral_message_id is undocumented in both places.

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: 'Edit the text of an ephemeral message'. The word 'text' implicitly separates it from siblings like edit_ephemeral_message_caption, edit_ephemeral_message_media and edit_ephemeral_message_reply_markup, though those alternatives are never named 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus edit_message_text (regular messages) or the other ephemeral edit tools. The only usage-adjacent statement is a caveat about offline delivery, which is a reliability note rather than a selection rule.

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