Edit message

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

The description adds significant detail beyond annotations: the two-step process with confirm_token, the irreversibility, validation of parameters on confirm step, and the resulting LastEditTimestamp. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and description confirms and elaborates.

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 paragraph in Russian, which conflicts with the English tool name and title. For an agent processing English, this creates a language barrier and reduces conciseness. The content is dense but not front-loaded efficiently.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the preview behavior and the final state after editing. It covers the key aspects: two steps, validation, irreversibility, and post-edit state. Lacks a summary of return values, but sufficient for agent use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the two-step logic but does not provide new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., confirm_token's role).

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 clearly states it edits the user's own message in two steps (preview then confirm). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_message, pin_message, etc., by specifying the two-phase workflow and the restriction to own messages only.

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 explains when to use each step (without confirm for preview, with confirm to apply) and states that editing someone else's message is rejected. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but the context is clear.

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