messages_edit

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-read-only operation, but the description adds the specific 403 rejection for non-bot messages and discloses the return object format. This goes beyond the structured fields to clarify an important behavioral constraint.

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 compact and well-structured using bold labels for Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, and Returns. Each sentence earns its place, providing essential information without redundancy.

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 tool, the description covers the core purpose, key limitations, and return value. The output schema exists, so return details are explicitly stated. This is complete given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, with all three parameters (content, channel_id, message_id) described in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what is already provided, 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 Discord message previously sent by the bot, using a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from sibling message tools by emphasizing the bot-author restriction, which is a key distinguishing factor.

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 'When to use' section lists concrete use cases (typos, status updates, embeds), and the 'When NOT to use' section explicitly warns against editing foreign messages with the 403 error. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and when to avoid it.

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