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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false) the description discloses the 15-minute edit window, that only the caller's own messages are editable, and crucially that edit history is retained while formal records are immutable — which softens the destructive framing. No mention of permission failures or the response shape, so not a 5.

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?

Four short clauses, no filler, with the operating constraint (15min) and the key sibling pointer up front. The fragment style ("reread conflicts") is dense to the point of slight ambiguity, which keeps it from a 5.

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 no output schema and no annotation-level recovery detail, it covers scope, precondition, conflict handling, and reversibility. What a successful edit returns is not described, but the description is otherwise sufficient 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 coverage is only 25% (only body is documented), so the description must carry the load: it explains where order_id/message_id come from and frames expected_revision as an optimistic-concurrency token that triggers a reread on conflict. Only the length limits and types are left purely to the schema, so it compensates well.

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?

States a specific action and object: editing the user's own text in an order chat, with an explicit 15-minute window and chat:edit scope. The reference to webaz_order_chat and the immutability note distinguish it from the sibling read/recall tools, though the telegraphic phrasing takes a moment to parse.

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?

Gives a prerequisite workflow (fetch IDs/revision via webaz_order_chat first) and a conflict procedure (reread on revision mismatch), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before calling. It stops short of naming when not to use it or of contrasting directly with webaz_order_chat_recall, so it stops at 4.

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