Change a chat message

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds an authorization boundary (only messages written by the Gamemaster the bridge runs as) and a visibility guarantee (recipients do not change). It doesn't spell out return behavior, but that is not essential for invocation.

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, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the alternative-recipient caveat. Every clause 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 simple 3-parameter, 1-required update with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover scope, mutation, destructive behavior, and alternative routing. No critical information for calling it 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 100%, so parameter meaning is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the content-or-flavor distinction, adding no syntax, constraints, or defaults beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific action ('Change'), a specific target ('chat message'), and a scope constraint ('written by the Gamemaster the bridge runs as'). It also names exactly what can change (content or flavor), which distinguishes it from send-chat-message and delete-chat-message.

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 explicitly gives the condition for use (editing an existing GM-authored message) and the when-not: 'Who sees the message does not change; send a new message for other recipients.' This routes the agent to the sibling send-chat-message without ambiguity.

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