discord_edit_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: permission requirements, rate limits, whether edits are reversible, how Discord handles edit history, or what happens if the message doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent with insufficient operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward editing operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after editing (success/failure responses), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the operational context for a Discord message edit requires more guidance about permissions, limitations, and outcomes than the current description provides.

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 clearly documented in the schema (channelId, messageId, content with maxLength). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 action ('Edit') and resource ('a previously sent message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like discord_send_message (create) and discord_delete_message (remove), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The verb+resource combination is specific but could be more precise about what aspects can be edited.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to have sent the message or have appropriate permissions), when editing is appropriate versus deleting/resending, or how it differs from similar operations. With multiple message-related siblings (send_message, delete_message, get_message), this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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