zernio_edit_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states only 'Edit a message' without explaining side effects (e.g., replacement of existing text, irreversibility, logging). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is concise, though it could be expanded slightly to improve behavioral transparency without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 required params, mutation), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain return values or confirm that the edit is permanent. Considering lack of output schema and sibling similarity, it could be more complete.

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 each parameter having a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Edit') and the resource ('a message in a conversation'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like zernio_send_message or zernio_delete_message. However, it could be more specific about what is being edited (text content) to achieve a perfect 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when to avoid using it. Sibling tools like zernio_send_message, zernio_delete_message, and zernio_react_to_message exist, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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