telegram_edit_own_message

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the operation changes external state and requires explicit confirmation, which is a procedural trait not present in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and target, the second warns about external state change and confirmation. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: ownership (authenticated account), message type (text), and the need for confirmation. It does not cover error cases or time limits, but the sibling tools and schema provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 description coverage, the description must supply meaning. It maps the three parameters to 'chat', 'message', and 'replacement text', giving semantic roles to chat_id, message_id, and text. It does not elaborate on constraints or how to obtain chat_id/message_id, but the schema provides the validation rules.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('one text message previously sent by the authenticated Telegram account'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like send_message and delete_own_message. The scope is explicit: only the authenticated account's own messages. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 description states the target condition: a message previously sent by the authenticated account, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and implicitly rules out messages from others. It also requires explicit confirmation of chat, message, and replacement text, serving as a precondition. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like delete_and_resend or mention when not to use it.

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