webhooks_edit_message

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: no Authorization header needed, body mirrors webhooks_execute except thread_name, thread_id is a query parameter, and return structure. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 tightly structured with bold labels, bullet points, and a clear hierarchy. Every sentence serves a purpose—purpose, usage, alternative, auth, body shape, returns—without any 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?

For a 12-parameter tool with nested objects, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, auth, body shape, thread_id distinction, and return value. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but the annotations and output schema fill some gaps, making it nearly complete.

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?

With 58% schema coverage, the description helps by clarifying that the request body mirrors webhooks_execute minus thread_name and that thread_id is a query param. This compensates for undocumented params like content and attachments, even though it doesn't enumerate them directly.

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 'Edit a message previously sent by this webhook'—a specific verb + resource that clearly distinguishes it from sending (webhooks_execute) or editing regular messages (messages_edit). It also notes V2 layout support, further differentiating from non-webhook editors.

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?

Provides a concrete 'When to use' list (resolved alerts, typo fixes, V2 layout swaps) and explicitly names components_v2_edit as the preferred alternative for V2 layouts. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings.

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