discord_edit_message

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the ownership constraint that the bot may only edit its own messages, which is genuine behavioral context not captured by the annotations, though it omits replace-vs-merge edit semantics.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the constraint. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

It is a mutation tool with no output schema and a nested embed parameter, yet the description does not explain edit semantics (e.g., whether omitted fields are cleared, whether embed replaces content) or what the result contains. The annotations cover safety, but an agent still lacks enough to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 80% and the description adds no parameter-level detail (nothing about content vs embed precedence, mentions behavior, or IDs). With the schema doing most of the work, the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Edit a message'), which is distinct from the read/send/delete siblings. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation or naming of which fields can be changed, so it is clear but not routing-grade.

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 supplies one meaningful precondition ('Discord only lets the bot edit its own messages'), which is real usage guidance. However, there is no when-to-use/when-not framing and no reference to alternatives like discord_send_message or discord_delete_message, leaving routing implied.

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