edit_message

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation with external effects. The description adds the 'own message' constraint, which is behavioral. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like edit limitations, formatting handling, or potential errors. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 a single concise sentence in Russian, front-loaded with the core action. Every word is meaningful, and it avoids redundancy. It is exactly as short as it can be without losing the essential purpose.

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?

With 5 parameters, 3 required, an enum, and a boolean, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what the parameters affect, advanced constraints, or expected outcomes. The output schema exists but is not visible, so the description alone leaves too many gaps for the agent to make educated guesses.

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%, and the description provides no parameter semantics. The agent must rely on parameter names and the parse_mode enum for meaning. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving parameters like chat, message_id, and link_preview partially underspecified.

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 'Отредактировать своё сообщение' uses a specific action verb (edit) and a clear resource (own message), making it obvious what the tool does. The word 'своё' (own) adds a crucial constraint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_message and delete_message.

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 implies the tool should be used to edit a message the user sent, but it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions beyond the 'own message' qualifier. It gives enough context for basic use but lacks guidance on choosing between this and send_message or delete_message.

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