tg_bot_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important constraint: `commands` can only be set for this agent's own bot due to Telegram's token requirement. It also implies an ownership prerequisite by saying 'a bot you own'. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits or reversibility, but for a simple edit tool this is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a necessary clarification about commands. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key constraints thoroughly. It omits `lang_code` details but the output schema and obvious parameter names reduce the risk. The command restriction is a valuable addition that makes the tool's behavior predictable.

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. It explains the meaning of several parameters: display name (name), 'what can this bot do' text (about), description, and the exact format of `commands` as a list of {"command", "description"}. It does not explain `lang_code` or `bot`, though `bot` is self-evident and `lang_code` is minor. Overall, it adds significant meaning 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 description clearly states the tool edits a bot you own, listing specific editable fields (display name, 'what can this bot do' text, description). This distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like tg_edit and tg_bot_info by specifying the resource (bots) and ownership scope.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (for editing a bot you own) and provides a when-not/alternative: the `commands` field can only be set for the agent's own bot because Telegram requires the bot's token, and for other bots users should use @BotFather. This gives clear context and an alternative for a specific case.

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