components_v2_edit

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

The annotations only mark the operation as non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description goes much further by disclosing the irreversible V2 flag, the two-phase preview/confirm flow, the one-time approval ID, the expiry, the requirement for exact hash and ID, and that the edit happens once. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two labeled sections, front-loaded purpose, no filler. The Returns paragraph compresses a complex confirmation flow into two dense but necessary sentences.

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 complex mutating tool with a confirmation workflow, the description covers the purpose, the irreversible nature, the return shape, the prerequisite preview values, and the exact confirmation conditions. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly, especially when combined with the schema.

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 high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics by connecting the returned payload_hash and approval_id to __confirm_hash and __confirm_id, and by clarifying that __confirm must be true with the exact values before expiry. This goes beyond the individual parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit a Components V2 message previously sent by this bot.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic editing siblings like messages_edit or webhooks_edit_message by scoping it to Components V2 messages.

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?

It gives clear usage context: the tool applies only to Components V2 messages sent by this bot, and the IS_COMPONENTS_V2 flag is irreversible, so agent knows not to expect conversion away from V2. It does not explicitly name a non-V2 alternative such as messages_edit, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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