edit_message_media

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds the allowed media types but does not disclose operational constraints such as replacement behavior, permission requirements, or the need to choose between chat_id/message_id and inline_message_id.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, listing media types concisely with no filler or 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?

For a mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is too high-level. It omits critical invocation details like required fields, inline-message usage, and which parameters are mutually exclusive, leaving an agent with insufficient guidance to use the tool 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 coverage is 60%, with media and inline_message_id lacking descriptions. The description mentions media types but does not explain that media is effectively required, how inline_message_id relates to chat_id/message_id, or what reply_markup contributes in this context. It adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Edit' and identifies the resource 'media content of a message' with a clear list of media types (photo, video, animation, document, audio). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_message_text, edit_message_caption, and edit_message_reply_markup.

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 for editing media within a message and provides a clear context via the allowed media types. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection among siblings.

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