chatra_edit_messageWRITE: replace the text of an agent message that was sent earlier. Only agents' messages can be edited, not visitors'. The visitor sees the edited text. Returns the updated message. PUT /messages/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Message text (plain text, 1-5000 characters). | |
| message_id | Yes | Chatra message id (from the reply of a send call or from a webhook). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the edit is visible to the visitor and only agent-authored messages qualify, which is not captured by any structured field. It doesn't cover failure behavior when the target message is a visitor message.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the action, followed by the eligibility constraint, the user-visible effect, and the return value. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, who can see it, the eligibility rule, and the return value. Only edge behavior (errors on visitor messages, whether prior text is recoverable) is left implicit.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented (message_id source, text length bounds), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 verb and resource ('replace the text of an agent message that was sent earlier') plus the underlying PUT endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like chatra_send_message or chatra_delete_message without opening any schema.
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?
Provides an explicit applicability constraint: only agents' messages can be edited, not visitors'. That is a real exclusion that steers the agent away from misuse. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. chatra_edit_pushed_message for pushed messages) when this tool doesn't apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.