stopMessageLiveLocation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the action and the return value ('edited Message on success, or True if the message is an inline message'), which is useful. It does not discuss permissions or failure cases, but for this API method the provided behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated efficiently in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 description covers the purpose, the timing condition, and the return behavior. Since the schema fully documents the parameters and their conditional requirements, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Stop updating') and a clear resource ('a live location message'), and it adds the timing condition 'before live_period expires.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like editMessageLiveLocation and stopPoll.

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 phrase 'before live_period expires' gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when you need to stop the live location early. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full explicit routing.

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