Edit message

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so mutation is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: ownership limitation, no media editing, detailed success/error return dicts, and parse_mode behavior. No contradictions. Minor lack of rate-limit or auth details beyond 'authenticated account' keeps it from a 5.

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?

Compact and front-loaded—purpose, scope, and alternatives appear in the first two sentences. The rest covers return format and parse_mode in a structured way. Slightly verbose with the documentation URL and repetition of 'use edit_message', but every sentence adds value for a moderately complex tool.

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 constraints, usage, alternatives, return format, error format, parse_mode details, and provides a documentation link. Output schema exists for returns, but the description goes beyond that to explain error cases and rich message behavior—complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds context for parse_mode (rich dialect auto-detection) and success return fields, but these are largely redundant with schema and output schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Replace the text of an existing message in a Telegram chat.' Immediately distinguishes from send_message with explicit guidance to use edit_message for updates and send_message for creations. Also clarifies scope (text-only, own messages only), eliminating ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and alternatives: 'Use edit_message to update a previously sent message; use send_message to create new ones.' Also notes restrictions (only messages sent by the authenticated account, cannot edit media) which serve as exclusions. This is textbook guidance.

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