edit_message_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden but fails to mention important traits. It doesn't state that editing may fail if the message is too old, that the message must be sent by the bot itself (Typical for Telegram bot APIs), or what happens to the original message's other properties. The mutation behavior is implicit in 'edit' but unsupported details are absent.

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 clear, efficient sentence with no waste. It's appropriately short for a tool whose parameters are well-covered by the schema, though it could arguably benefit from one more clause about constraints.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation isn't required. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description is thin — it doesn't cover edit limitations (time windows, message must be from the bot), constraints, or when edits silently fail. It's minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether a requested edit is feasible.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description adds virtually nothing beyond the schema — it doesn't explain parse_mode formatting options in more detail or add semantics about how text replacement works. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Edit the text of an existing message') which clearly identifies the action and target. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_message (creates new) and delete_message (removes) by focusing on 'editing existing text,' though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that this only works for message types that support text editing, that edits typically only apply within Telegram's time limits (like the 48-hour rule for bot messages in some contexts), or that send_message should be used for new messages instead.

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