edit_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the message must be the user's own ('своё'), which is a useful constraint, but it fails to disclose what happens on failure, permission requirements, whether edits are limited in time, or how parse_mode/link_preview affect the edit. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately compact for stating the core operation, though it is terse to the point of under-specification. Still, as a concise phrasing, it earns a high score.

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?

Given a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain required parameters, the meaning of parse_mode or link_preview, any side effects, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description leaves critical decision-making context to the agent's guesswork.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the role of 'id' (message_id), while ignoring chat, text, parse_mode, and link_preview. The schema provides names and defaults but no descriptions, and the tool description adds little beyond the word 'id'.

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 Russian description 'Изменить своё сообщение по id.' clearly identifies a specific verb ('edit'), a resource ('message'), and an identifier requirement ('by id'). It also adds the scope restriction 'своё' (your own), which helps distinguish from operations like send_message or delete_messages. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool or contrast itself, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_message or delete_messages. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must have already sent the message), restrictions, or context where editing is appropriate. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned.

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