edit_message_text

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses one useful constraint — media albums cannot be edited — but omits the edit-window limit, the authorship requirement, and whether the edit replaces or merges with the existing keyboard.

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 core constraint is front-loaded in a single compact sentence. The full Chinese restatement roughly doubles the length without adding new information, a minor cost.

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 not be explained. Still, for an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves too much implicit — especially chat_id/message_id pairing and keyboard 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the schema gives no help on message_id, chat_id, parse_mode, inline_buttons, reply_keyboard, remove_keyboard, or one_time_keyboard. The description's phrase 'text or keyboard' vaguely gestures at two of the parameters but adds no meaning for any of them.

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: 'Edit the text or keyboard of a previously sent message.' This clearly distinguishes it from the send_* siblings, which create new messages rather than modify existing ones.

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 parenthetical '(does not work for media albums)' gives one exclusion, and 'previously sent' implies the edit-after-send context. However, it never names what to use instead for albums (e.g., send_media_album) nor states prerequisites such as the bot having authored the original message.

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