tg_edit

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true already present, the description is not required to restate that this mutates data. It adds the useful constraint 'own sent', but does not disclose effects such as replacing the original text, edit visibility, or failure conditions, so it provides only modest value beyond the 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds scope ('one', 'own', 'sent', 'messages'). No redundant clauses or boilerplate.

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 tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, yet the description only explains the general purpose. An agent still lacks the information needed to construct correct arguments or anticipate the output, so the definition is not complete enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining chat, text, and message_id. It gives no parameter-level details: 'chat' could be an ID or username, 'message_id' could be chat-scoped or global, and whether 'text' is the full replacement content is only implied. Some inference is possible from the field names and tool purpose, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb ('Edit') and target ('one of your own sent messages'), making it clearly a message-editing operation. This distinguishes it from sibling edit tools like tg_chat_edit, tg_bot_edit, tg_topic_edit, and tg_contact_edit without needing their schemas.

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 phrase 'own sent messages' gives clear context: this tool applies only to messages already sent by the caller, which implies it is not for drafts, scheduled messages, or others' messages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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