edit_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states the key restriction (only bot-sent messages can be edited), but does not disclose potential failure modes, authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no waste.

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?

The tool has a simple 3-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and scope but omits parameter explanations and any note about return values or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a complete picture.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for the three required parameters (text, chat_id, message_id), and the description does not explain them. With 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not, leaving parameter semantics entirely to parameter names.

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 the specific verb 'Edit', identifies the resource as 'a Discord message', and adds the scoping constraint 'previously sent by the bot', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like send_message and reply.

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 condition 'previously sent by the bot' gives clear context that this tool is for modifying existing bot-sent messages, implying it should not be used for messages from other users or for sending new messages. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls between implied and clear context.

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