edit_message_media

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

Annotations already declare that this is not read-only, is idempotent, is non-destructive, and has open-world behavior. The description adds the supported media types, but does not explain permissions, limits, or what happens to existing captions/reply markup when media is replaced.

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 redundant wording. It states the core action and input domain directly.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with only partial schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits conditional address requirements, permission expectations, and editing constraints that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 50%, with only chat_id and message_id carrying descriptions. The description adds meaning to the otherwise undocumented media parameter by listing accepted media content types, but it does not clarify conditional identifier requirements or the purpose of inline_message_id and business_connection_id.

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 clear verb+resource (edit the media content of a message) and enumerates supported media types. It does not explicitly distinguish this from similar siblings like edit_ephemeral_message_media or edit_message_caption, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_message_text, edit_message_caption, or send_photo. The verb 'edit' implies an existing message, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance are provided.

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