edit_message_checklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that a business connection is required, but says nothing about what gets replaced, what happens to fields left out, or any permission constraints.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficiently written, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness captured in other dimensions.

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?

With five parameters, three required, two of them undocumented free-form objects, and no output schema, the description should explain what a checklist edit actually changes. As written, an agent knows the verb and a prerequisite but not how to construct the payload or what the result will be.

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 only 20% — just chat_id is documented ('Chat ID or @username'). The checklist and reply_markup parameters are untyped empty objects with no schema at all, and the description adds no semantics for them or for message_id and business_connection_id, leaving the two most important payload parameters unexplained.

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 ('Edit a checklist message'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like send_checklist, edit_message_text, and edit_message_reply_markup. It stops short of describing what aspects of the checklist can be edited, but the operation itself 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?

The only guidance is a prerequisite ('Requires a business connection'), which tells the agent a condition for calling but not when to prefer this tool over edit_message_text or edit_message_reply_markup. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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