edit_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 discloses the bot-authored constraint and that mention resolution is optional/automatic, which is meaningful behavior. But it omits what happens on failure (e.g., editing a non-bot message), required permissions, and whether the edit is idempotent.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action and scope constraint front-loaded. No filler, though it is brief enough that some clarifying detail could have been added without bloat.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate more. It covers the essential action and the mention-resolution option, but leaves error conditions, permission requirements, and result format unaddressed for a mutation tool.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including resolveMentions. The description only restates the mention-resolution behavior at a high level and adds nothing about formats or edge cases beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (edit) and resource (message) plus an important scope constraint: 'previously sent by the bot'. This distinguishes it from editing arbitrary messages, though it does not name the closest sibling edit_direct_message to route the agent explicitly.

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 'previously sent by the bot' implies a usage restriction (the bot can only edit its own messages), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no reference to edit_direct_message or send_message as alternatives.

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