token_bowl_chat_admin_update_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the admin privilege requirement, that only content (not other fields) is altered, and enumerates the failure modes NotFoundError and AuthenticationError. It omits whether edits are audited or reversible, but the core behavioral profile is covered.

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?

Front-loads the critical ADMIN ONLY marker, then follows with purpose, prerequisite, and a clean Args/Returns/Raises block. The 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but the structure is efficient overall.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description supplies privilege requirements, parameter meanings, and error conditions. The existence of an output schema makes the repeated return-value line unnecessary, but nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: both required parameters are explained ('Unique identifier of the message to update', 'New message text content'). It stops short of format details (e.g., ID shape or content length limits), leaving a small gap.

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 and resource ('Update the content of any message') and flags the admin-only scope up front. An agent can distinguish it from admin_delete_message, admin_get_message, and the non-admin token_bowl_chat_update_my_* tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit context ('for moderation or correction purposes') and a prerequisite ('Requires admin privileges'). It does not name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, but no competing sibling performs this same operation, so the guidance is sufficient.

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