Edit a message

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

The idempotentHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover retry safety, lowering the bar. The description adds that the message must already have been sent, but it does not disclose typical limitations like ownership restrictions or age limits.

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 that immediately conveys the core action. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits important context such as return values, permissions, or behavioral caveats, making it incomplete for a production messaging API.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'text' parameter but provides no explanations for peer, messageId, parseMode, linkPreview, or accountId, leaving significant gaps for a 6-parameter tool.

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 function: editing the text of a previously sent message. It uses a specific verb (edit) and resource (message text), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_message, delete_messages, and pin_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sending a new message or deleting and resending. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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