edit_message_caption

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds the 'media message' constraint, which is useful context. It doesn't disclose permission requirements or behavior on invalid messages, but given annotation coverage, it's adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It fully earns its place by stating exactly what the tool does.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but sufficient to understand the core function. It doesn't cover important invocation details like parameter combinations (chat_id+message_id vs inline_message_id) or prerequisites, but the schema provides some guidance. Overall it's adequate with clear gaps.

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 schema descriptions cover 63% of parameters (5 of 8), but the description adds no information about the remaining parameters (caption, inline_message_id, show_caption_above_media). While the name hints at the caption parameter, the description fails to clarify the alternative identification via message_id vs inline_message_id, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and names the exact resource ('caption of a media message'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling edit tools like edit_message_text or edit_message_media. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context by specifying 'media message', indicating it's intended for editing captions of media messages rather than text or other message types. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like edit_message_text or edit_message_reply_markup, nor any exclusions.

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