components_v2_edit

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the irreversible IS_COMPONENTS_V2 flag and that only messages sent by this bot can be edited, which is 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two labeled sections. It front-loads the purpose and includes a concise return type without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, key behavioral constraint, and return format. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete, though it could elaborate on components structure.

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 schema covers channel_id and message_id with descriptions, but the components parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description does not explain the expected structure or content of components, leaving a significant gap for the core input.

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 states 'Edit a Components V2 message previously sent by this bot,' clearly identifying the action and target. It also differentiates from siblings like messages_edit and components_v2_send by noting the V2 specificity and the irreversible flag.

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 clear context that this tool is for editing existing V2 messages sent by the bot, implying it is not for sending new ones or editing regular messages. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of full guidance.

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