st.chat.message.edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral requirement: confirm must be true for the edit to proceed. However, it does not mention the destructive/irreversible nature of editing, required permissions, or side effects on fields other than the message body.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and the critical confirm requirement are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the index and confirm semantics but leaves the required avatar/fileName parameters unexplained, making it impossible to call correctly without external knowledge.

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%. The description clarifies two of eight parameters: 'index' (zero-based meaning) and 'confirm' (must be true). It completely ignores the required parameters 'avatar' and 'fileName', which would leave an agent guessing about their semantics, and also ignores force, fields, message, and snapshotLabel.

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 uses a specific verb ('edit'), a specific resource ('existing chat message'), and the unique addressing mechanism ('zero-based transcript index'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like st.chat.message.append and st.chat.message.delete. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies the use case: when you need to modify an already-sent message rather than appending or deleting one. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions like 'use append for new messages', so guidance is only implicit.

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