edit_message_live_location

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 structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about what happens to the live period when editing, whether updates push to clients in real time, or what permissions/ownership apply. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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 single sentence is clean and front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Its brevity, however, comes from under-specification rather than efficiency, so it earns no more than a middling score.

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 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering ownership/permission rules, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine valid parameter combinations or the effect of the edit from this description alone.

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?

Eleven parameters with only 27% schema description coverage, and the description supplies zero parameter meaning. The critical alternatives — chat_id + message_id versus inline_message_id — are never mentioned, and semantics of live_period, heading, horizontal_accuracy and proximity_alert_radius are left entirely 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 restates the tool name in sentence form: 'Edit a live location message.' It confirms the verb and resource but adds nothing an agent could not infer from the identifier, and it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as stop_message_live_location, edit_message_media, or send_location.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions (e.g. that the target message must be an active live-location message, or that a bot may only edit its own messages), and no routing to alternatives like stop_message_live_location. Usage must be guessed entirely.

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