discord_edit_message

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

The description discloses a key behavioral limitation (only bot-authored messages can be edited), which is directly relevant to the caller. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, or idempotency. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and provides partial but meaningful transparency.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action verb, making it easy to parse.

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 operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description and parameter schema are sufficient. The critical constraint (bot-authored only) is stated, and all required parameters are documented. No additional context is necessary.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (content, channelId, messageId). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 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 the tool edits a previously sent bot-authored message, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like discord_delete_message, discord_send, and discord_pin_message by focusing on editing and the bot-authorship constraint.

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 a clear usage constraint: only messages authored by the bot can be edited. This implicitly guides when to use this tool (for bot messages) versus alternatives, though it does not explicitly name other tools. The restriction is sufficient for most cases.

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