edit_message_text

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate a mutable, non-destructive, idempotent operation), the description adds a key behavioral constraint: edits are only allowed on messages sent by the bot or via inline mode. This informs the agent of a critical eligibility rule not present in the schema or annotations.

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 that immediately states the action and scope. No waste, and it is front-loaded with the verb 'Edit'.

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 straightforward text-editing tool, the description covers the essential non-schema information (message ownership constraint). It does not explain the return value or the need for chat_id/message_id vs inline_message_id, but the schema handles those, and the tool is simple enough that the description is adequate.

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 description coverage is high (88%), so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline score for high coverage.

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 identifies the exact target (text of a message), while adding the critical scope restriction that only messages sent by the bot or via inline mode are editable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_message_caption or edit_message_media.

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?

It provides clear context by indicating that this tool is for changing the text of messages the bot owns. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the scope restriction implicitly separates it from caption/media editing tools.

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