Изменить отправленное сообщение

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

With annotations marking this as a mutating, non-read-only operation, the description goes further and discloses valuable behavioral details: the change appears both to the interlocutor and in the panel, buttons stay unchanged, the bot must be running, and very old messages may not be editable. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise, high-value constraints and limitations. Every sentence carries useful information: scope, exclusions, alternatives, and runtime prerequisites.

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 mutating edit operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what gets changed, where the change appears, what cannot be changed, when the operation may fail, and what preconditions apply. An agent has enough information to select and invoke 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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, including descriptions for text, dialog, message, and case. The description adds only a little extra meaning, such as the fact that attachment captions are not edited, which clarifies the scope of the text parameter but does not substantially go 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 states a specific verb and resource: it changes the text of an already-sent message, affecting both the recipient and the panel conversation. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like dialogs_delete_message or dialogs_reply by focusing on editing an existing sent message.

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 gives strong usage context: it only edits the bot's or operator's own messages, cannot edit undelivered messages (says to resend instead), and cannot edit attachment captions. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, but the conditions and exclusions are clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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