update_own_message

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears this burden. It discloses that the tool does not update until confirm_send is called, fetches current text for a visual diff, returns a preview with before/after, states that drafts expire after 1 hour, and can only be confirmed once—very transparent.

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 multi-paragraph but each sentence contributes unique information. It is front-loaded with the key caveat about confirm_send. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two-phase update, draft expiration, preview), the description is comprehensive. It covers return values (draft_id, preview, etc.), and the presence of an output schema further supports completeness for return types.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions channel, ts, text, and workspace (optional) but does not provide detailed syntax or constraints (e.g., ts format). This adds some value but not enough to fully cover missing schema descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Stage an edit to one of your own messages' and emphasizes it does NOT update until confirm_send is called, distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_message and confirm_send.

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 explains the two-phase workflow (stage then confirm) and mentions that after confirm_send the message is edited via chat.update, providing context. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the sibling list includes alternatives like delete_own_message, so the guidance is adequate.

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