edit_message_caption

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

The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as permission requirements, whether editing replaces the existing caption, or how failures behave.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a concise statement of purpose, even though it omits other useful context.

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 nine parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain usage conditions, parameter interactions, or behavioral details that would help an agent invoke it correctly beyond the partially documented schema.

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 67%, and the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not compensate for undocumented optional parameters like inline_message_id, business_connection_id, or show_caption_above_media.

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: edit the caption of a media message. This distinguishes it implicitly from text-editing siblings like edit_message_text, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify edge cases such as ephemeral messages.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus edit_message_text, edit_message_media, edit_ephemeral_message_caption, or other message-editing siblings. The agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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