edit_message_live_location

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

The description discloses only the basic action, with no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey (mutation, idempotent, not destructive). It does not mention constraints like the need for a live location message, how coordinates are updated, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value.

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 extremely concise at five words, with no wasted text or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the action. However, its brevity sacrifices useful detail, so it does not achieve a perfect score for helpfulness.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is severely inadequate. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, identification requirements (chat_id/message_id vs inline_message_id), or parameter constraints, making it nearly useless for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only 33%, so the description carries a heavy burden for explaining parameters. It mentions nothing about latitude, longitude, chat_id, message_id, or other fields, failing to compensate for the schema's sparse descriptions. The action of editing a live location implies coordinates and message identification, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 'Edit a live location message' clearly uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('live location message'), making the primary purpose clear. It is distinguished from most siblings by the explicit object, though it does not differentiate from related edit tools like edit_message_text or stop_message_live_location.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_message_live_location or other edit_message_* tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context signals are given beyond the basic action.

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