telegram_edit_message

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

The description discloses the text-only limitation, original-sender permission requirement, and how response_format changes the return value. Annotations already note mutating but non-destructive and idempotent, and the description adds valuable context without contradiction.

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?

Structured sections with Args and Returns, front-loaded warning about text-only limitation. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-organized.

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?

Covers permissions, text-only scope, all parameters, and return values including the markdown/json difference. Sibling distinction further completes the picture, making the description self-sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: channel_id (username or ID, same channel), message_id (returned at publish), new_text (formatting based on parse_mode), parse_mode (options/default), and response_format (options/default). This goes 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?

The opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource ('Edit an existing TEXT message in a Telegram channel') and immediately differentiates from the sibling tool by stating photo messages should use edit_message_caption instead. This makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly provides an alternative for photo messages (edit_message_caption) and states the bot must be the original sender with edit permissions. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, satisfying the highest bar.

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