edit_message

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

Beyond annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description adds key behavioral traits: only own messages can be edited, recipients see an 'edited' label. This provides essential operational context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, constraints, and alternative tool. No unnecessary words.

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 edit tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, ownership, recipient visibility, and alternative action. Annotations provide additional safety cues.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter (chat_jid, message_id, new_body). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Edit a previously-sent message' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'Only your own messages can be edited' and explicitly contrasts with delete_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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use delete_message to revoke instead' serves as a clear when-not alternative. It implies when to use the tool (to edit a sent message) and notes that only own messages can be edited.

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