Edit message

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

The description adds significant context beyond the annotations: it explains the tool is destructive (edits existing message), idempotent (re-editing same text yields same result), and mentions that it only works on own messages. It also describes the success and error return formats. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description elaborates on what that means in practice.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is structured logically: what it does, constraints, success/error outputs, usage guidance, and a link to full docs. Every sentence adds 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 that there is no explicit output schema provided, the description compensates by detailing return values and error formats. It covers all key aspects: constraints, intended usage, output structure, error handling, and a reference link. This is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear descriptions for each of the 4 parameters, including enums and defaults. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool replaces the text of an existing message in a Telegram chat, specifying it only works on messages sent by the authenticated account and cannot edit media or other attributes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_message by explicitly saying 'Use edit_message to update a previously sent message; use send_message to create new ones.'

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to update a previously sent message) and when to use send_message (to create new ones). It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the stated constraints, but those constraints (only own messages, text only) are clear.

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