editMessageText

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating nature of the operation and specifies the return behavior (edited Message vs True for inline messages). But it does not mention constraints such as message ownership, edit time limits, or other side effects that would give an agent a fuller behavioral picture.

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 that states the action, scope, and return behavior without any filler. Every piece of information contributes to an agent's understanding.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description covers the return type, and the schema thoroughly documents parameter requirements like the mutual exclusion of chat_id/message_id vs inline_message_id. Still, with nine parameters and nested options, the description offers no usage scenarios or limitations beyond what is already structured, leaving moderate gaps in context.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to because every parameter is already well documented in the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Edit') and the resource ('text and game messages'), which distinguishes it from sibling edit tools such as editMessageCaption, editMessageMedia, and editMessageReplyMarkup. The return-value note further clarifies that it covers both regular and inline messages.

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 scope is implied by the resource mention — text and game messages — so an agent can infer this is not for captions, media, or reply markup. However, the description does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, leaving the routing to inference.

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