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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so mutation is implied. The description adds a crucial ownership requirement (bot-authored) and reveals bulk support via channel_ids/message_ids, which are not in annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or partial failure semantics, but gives meaningful extra context beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then a concise note on bulk execution. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, ownership constraint, and bulk capability. However, it omits details on how content/embeds are applied (replace vs. append), error conditions, bulk failure behavior, and any auth/rate-limit notes. For a moderate-complexity tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0% across 7 parameters. The description mentions bulk arrays (channel_ids, message_ids) but fails to explain the primary content fields (content, embeds) which are core to an edit operation. With zero schema descriptions, the description should compensate by detailing parameter roles; it only partial addresses bulk parameters, leaving the main parameters ambiguous.

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 'Edit a previously-sent message' with a specific verb and resource, and includes a critical constraint ('must be authored by this bot'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like discord_send_message (create) and discord_delete_message (delete), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides a usage constraint (only bot-authored messages) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool. It implies modifying an existing message but lacks explicit exclusions like 'instead of resending use this' or 'if you want a new message, use discord_send_message'. The constraint adds some guidance but not full comparative context.

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