hires_patch_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully states that only provided fields are changed and that the update must occur before send time, which is meaningful. However, it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or whether updates are reversible, so it is only moderately transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the key constraint. There is 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?

The description covers the core purpose and the main timing constraint, and the schema richly documents all parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could include more context about return values, failure cases, or how this differs from the full update tool. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100% and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The description adds a global semantic ('Only provided fields are changed') but does not elaborate on any specific parameter beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific action ('Partially update') and names the resource ('a scheduled message'), and adds the important constraint 'before send time.' The phrase 'Only provided fields are changed' clarifies partial semantics, distinguishing it from the full-update sibling tool hires_update_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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: for partial updates to scheduled messages before they are sent. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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