edit_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit a sent message' only indicates mutation of an existing message; it does not state whether the edit is limited to bot-owned messages, whether it changes the visible text entirely, what happens to message metadata, or any constraints like time limits or formatting restrictions.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. However, it borders on under-specification; while the single sentence is appropriately short, it lacks supporting context that could easily be added without bloating.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits any behavioral constraints, prerequisites, error conditions, or return value expectations. An agent cannot fully predict the outcome or requirements of calling this tool beyond the obvious edit action.

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 only 25% (only parse_mode is described), and the description does not compensate. It gives no explanation of chat_id, message_id, or text semantics beyond the tool name's implication. An agent must rely on parameter names alone to infer meaning.

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 resource ('a sent message'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_message or delete_message, but the 'sent message' qualifier implies modifying an existing message rather than creating or removing one.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_message, forward_message, or delete_message. The description implies only that the message must already be sent, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of related tools.

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