td_edit_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Edit an existing message.' It does not state whether the edit replaces the message in place, preserves history, requires permissions, or is reversible. The verb 'Edit' implies mutation, but no operational behavior beyond that is disclosed.

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 one short sentence and front-loads the core verb-resource pair with no wasted words. It is concise, though minimal supporting context is provided.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot infer side effects, whether the updated message is returned, or how failures are reported. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not provide enough context for safe 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 description coverage is 100%, and all three parameters (dialog, messageId, message) are already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Edit') and resource ('an existing message'), making the core action unambiguous and distinct from siblings like td_send_message, td_delete_messages, and td_search_messages. However, it does not explicitly name or compare itself to those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as td_send_message or td_get_message_history. The description gives no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about which workflow should route to this tool.

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