Bot: edit message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond them by framing the edit as a real-world mutation ('Changes a real message') and imposing a user-confirmation workflow, though it omits failure modes like editing a message too old to change.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and constraint, then the action warning. Nothing is padded and every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose, mutation semantics, and a confirmation safeguard; only edge cases (non-bot messages, age limits, notification side effects) are left unstated.

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 100% and all three parameters are documented in-schema (chat_id accepts numeric id or @username, message_id must be a bot-sent text message, text is the new body). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (replace text), resource (a message), and a scope constraint (one the bot sent earlier). This cleanly distinguishes it from bot_send_message, bot_delete_message, and message-reading siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation ('a message the bot sent earlier') plus an explicit pre-call requirement to confirm with the user. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., prefer bot_send_message when the original shouldn't change), so it is not fully explicit routing.

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