tg_bot_edit

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a useful behavioral constraint about command editing requiring the bot's token, but does not disclose error/ownership failure behavior or whether edits are immediately visible.

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 two sentences with no fluff: the first front-loads the action and editable fields, the second explains the important command restriction and alternative. 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?

The description covers most user-facing fields and the key ownership/token caveat, but without an output schema it does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to specify bot (username vs ID). lang_code is also missing. It is adequate for a straightforward edit tool but not fully complete.

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 compensates partially by mapping name/about/description fields and defining commands as a list of {command, description} objects. However, bot is only vaguely implied as an identifier and lang_code is left completely unexplained, so parameter coverage is incomplete.

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 states a specific action ('Edit a bot you own') and identifies the resource plus editable fields: display name, 'what can this bot do' text, and description. It is distinguishable from read-only siblings like tg_bot_info, though it does not explicitly name sibling edit tools.

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 clearly scopes the tool to bots the agent owns and explicitly says commands can only be set for this agent's own bot because Telegram requires the bot token. It also provides an external alternative (@BotFather) for other bots, giving a practical when-to-use boundary.

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