editChatInviteLink

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation mutates an existing link, requires can_invite_users permission, and returns the edited ChatInviteLink object. This is more transparent than typical, though it does not discuss side effects like replacement of the previous link.

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?

Two compact sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the permission requirement, and the return type. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, permissions, and return type. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with editChatSubscriptionInviteLink or stating that primary/subscription links are out of scope.

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 input schema covers all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic constraints: the invite_link parameter must be non-primary and bot-created. These constraints are absent from the schema and help agents select the right link value.

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 action (Edit), a precise target (non-primary invite link), and an ownership constraint (created by the bot). This is enough to distinguish it from create/revoke/export invite-link sibling tools and from subscription-link editing.

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 prerequisite (bot must be administrator with can_invite_users rights) and scopes use to non-primary links created by the bot. It does not explicitly name alternatives or call out when to use editChatSubscriptionInviteLink instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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