stop_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. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens if the live location was already stopped, whether an error is raised, or what the endpoint returns. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this adds zero extra context.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency; nothing is structured to help an agent choose arguments.

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 5-parameter mutation with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about message identification, required combinations, and the result. It is not complete enough to invoke confidently without reading the raw 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 coverage is 60%, with inline_message_id and business_connection_id entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Critically, the API requires either chat_id+message_id or inline_message_id, and the description says nothing about this mutually exclusive identification path or about reply_markup's role in the stop message.

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 ('Stop updating') and a specific resource ('a live location message'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate from the obvious sibling edit_message_live_location, which is the counterpart action, so it stops short of 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 guidance on when to use this instead of edit_message_live_location, or on preconditions such as having previously sent a live location with send_location and a live_period. Usage can only be inferred from the single verb 'Stop'.

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