draft_edit

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly reveals the tool only proposes an edit, requires confirmation, and only edits Telegram after approval. It doesn't cover what happens if the message is deleted first or whether the card is cancellable, but the core confirmation gate is distinctly disclosed.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence carries meaningful guidance (ownership, confirmation, tool choice, msg_id discovery. It could drop a small amount of redundancy, but it is not bloated.

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?

Given the tool's modest complexity, existing output schema, and the description's coverage of the confirmation workflow and msg_id discovery, it is largely complete. The main missing pieces are parameter details for chat_id and reason, but those are less critical for correct invocation than the explicit confirmation behavior.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does add real value for msg_id by explaining how to source it and for new_text by framing the old/new comparison. However, chat_id and reason remain unaddressed, and not all parameters are semantically clarified.

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 ('propose editing') and resource ('the OWNER'S OWN messages'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as the one for messages the owner dislikes after sending. The 'one card, replaced in place' phrasing reinforces its unique workflow.

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?

It gives a clear use case: when the owner dislikes an already-sent message. It also directs the agent to find msg_id via outbox_list or get_messages. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like draft_delete or outbox_cancel for when a message should be removed rather than edited, so exclusions are implied but not stated.

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