edit_reply

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: a 50-unit quota cost and a two-step confirmation flow where the user reviews old and new text, which signals interaction with confirm_action.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and quota cost, followed by the confirmation behavior. No filler, though the quota note could be slightly tighter.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the quota and confirmation disclosure, the agent has enough to call it correctly; only the routing against sibling tools like reply/moderate is absent.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents text and comment_id. The description maps loosely onto them ('текст комментария или ответа самого канала') but adds no format, length, or ID-syntax detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: replacing the text of a comment or the channel's own reply. The qualifier 'ответа самого канала' scopes it away from editing arbitrary third-party comments, though it does not name the sibling tools (reply, moderate) it should be chosen over.

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?

Implied usage is clear enough (edit existing text rather than post new content), and the mention of a user confirmation step hints at the workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as reply or moderate, and no stated prerequisites.

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