update_daily_forum_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: the tool is a dry-run by default unless confirm=true. It says nothing about required permissions, reversibility of the edit, or what the preview returns, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 no filler, and the critical confirm/preview behavior is front-loaded right after the core action. 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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the single most important behavioral fact (default preview). It omits permission requirements, post-confirm behavior, and return information, so it is adequate but not 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of the confirm parameter (preview vs. apply), which is the most consequential one, but adds no format or meaning for message_id or text beyond what their names imply.

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: modifying the text of a message in today's forum. It is clearly distinguishable from post_daily_forum_message and delete_daily_forum_message by the verb alone. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 phrase 'Sans confirm=true : aperçu seulement' implies the intended two-step workflow (preview, then commit), which is useful guidance. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives routing against the post/delete forum siblings.

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