mattermost_edit_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: an edit marker visible to everyone in the channel and an authorization requirement. It stops short of covering error behavior, whether the original text is recoverable, or the response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the visible side effect, then the permission constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what changes, the channel-visible side effect, and the permission gate. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and whether edits are reversible.

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%, so both post_id and message are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond "text" for message, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Edit the text of an existing message." This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like mattermost_post_message and mattermost_reply_to_thread, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 states a precondition ("Only the post author or a user with permission to edit others' posts can edit it"), which implies who should invoke it, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against sibling tools such as replying to a thread instead.

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