interactions_edit_original_response

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

Annotations already signal read-only=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those flags: 'Auth: token-secured (NO bot token)' clarifies credential requirements, 'null clears' discloses the effect of null values, and 'Body mirrors a webhook execute body' formats expectations. No contradiction with 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?

Four labeled, single-purpose lines (Purpose, Auth, Body, Returns) with zero filler. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the most important information is front-loaded. Excellent structure for an agent 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?

Given 10 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation knowledge: what, when, auth, body shape, null semantics, and return value. It could more explicitly point to interactions_edit_followup for non-original responses, but the name itself resolves that ambiguity. Overall complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 only 30%, so the description carries significant weight. It lists all writable body fields and adds crucial semantics: 'reusable' fields mirror a webhook execute body and 'null clears' each one. This compensates for the sparse per-parameter descriptions in the schema. Required params application_id and interaction_token are already well-described in the schema, so the gap is largely closed.

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 clear verb+resource statement: 'Edit the original interaction response'. The example 'fill in a deferred reply' adds concrete context. The word 'original' distinguishes this from sibling follow-up tools like interactions_edit_followup, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'e.g. fill in a deferred reply' gives a clear, concrete use case. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use interactions_edit_followup for follow-ups'), but the 'original' qualifier plus the example provide enough contextual guidance. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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