Edit a message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the mutation is visible to other participants because "Telegram marks it edited," which is a side effect the annotations do not express. It omits failure modes such as edit windows or permission errors, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the second sentence contributes non-redundant side-effect 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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, an explicit safety profile, and no output schema, the description covers ownership scope and the visible edited marker. Nothing critical is missing, though error conditions and edit-window limits are left unaddressed.

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% with three documented parameters (peer, message_id, text), so the schema carries the load. The description only gestures at the text parameter and adds no syntax, formatting, or constraints (e.g., length limits or parse modes) beyond what the schema already states.

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 (change) and resource (the text of a message you sent), which implicitly separates it from send, delete, and forward. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated rather than 5.

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?

"A message you sent" is a real ownership constraint that tells the agent this cannot be used on other people's messages, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and no routing to alternatives such as send for new content or delete for removal. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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