edit_chat_invite_link

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the useful constraint that only non-primary links can be edited, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether existing join requests are affected or if the link URL remains unchanged.

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 with no filler words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning its place 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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters) and the availability of related invite-link tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, the effect on the existing invite link, or necessary permissions, making it insufficient for fully informed tool invocation.

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?

With schema coverage at only 17% (only chat_id has a description) and no parameter information in the tool description, the agent is left to infer meaning from parameter names alone. The description does nothing to explain the purpose or constraints of fields like expire_date, member_limit, creates_join_request, or their interaction during an edit.

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 the action ('Edit') and the resource ('a non-primary invite link'), and the qualifier 'non-primary' distinguishes it from related invite-link tools like export_chat_invite_link or revoke_chat_invite_link.

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 implicitly restricts usage to non-primary invite links, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus creating or revoking a link, nor does it mention any prerequisites like admin rights.

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