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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description corroborates the write nature while adding real context: the edit is visible to the visitor and the call returns the updated message. It does not explain that the previous text is discarded or what happens for a stale/invalid id, which is the main remaining gap for a destructive tool.

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?

One dense sentence front-loaded with the WRITE marker, followed by the return value and endpoint. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states that the updated message is returned, and the endpoint hints at the underlying operation. It stops short of covering error behavior and permission requirements, which matters for a destructive, open-world mutation.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including length bounds and where the id comes from), so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as format of message_id or whether partial text replacement is allowed beyond what the schema states.

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 ('replace the text') and a specific resource ('a pushed message sent earlier'), plus the user-visible effect ('the visitor sees the edited text'). The 'pushed message' qualifier is what separates it from chatra_edit_message, though the description never names that sibling outright.

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?

Use is only implied: editing requires that the message already exists ('sent earlier'). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer chatra_edit_message instead, and no mention of preconditions such as failures on unknown message ids.

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