discord_edit_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states that the tool edits a bot-sent message; it does not disclose how nulling fields behaves, whether edits overwrite embed data, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the message is missing. For a mutation tool, this is a notable transparency gap.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, the conciseness comes from under-specification: a single purpose-focused sentence provides no value for the tool's 9-parameter surface and complex optional embed fields.

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 tool has an output schema, so it doesn't need return-value details, but it has no annotations and no parameter documentation in the schema. Given that this is an edit operation with optional content and embed fields, the description is not sufficient for an agent to know exactly what the call will change or clear.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The agent is left to infer semantics from field names like content, embed_* , channel_id, and message_id, with no guidance on how these fields interact or when null is used to clear an existing value.

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 names a specific verb (edit), a resource (message), and an important qualifier: the message was previously sent by the bot. This distinguishes it from send_message, delete_message, and other message-related tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'previously sent by the bot' gives a clear condition: use this for modifying bot-authored messages, not messages from other users. However, it does not explicitly say which alternative to use for new messages or message removal, leaving some inference to the agent.

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