edit_message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the 15-minute edit window and the fact that the replacement propagates to all recipients ('L'ancien texte est remplacé chez tous les destinataires'). It omits what happens on failure past the window (e.g., error vs. silent no-op).

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the temporal constraint front-loaded alongside the core action. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs beyond the rich annotations: the 15-minute window and the recipient-visible replacement. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The unaddressed 'account' and 'chat' semantics are the remaining gap.

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 only 25% — just the 'text' field is documented ('Nouveau texte.'). The description does not explain 'chat', 'message_id', or the multi-account 'account' parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap in a 4-parameter tool.

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 ('Modifie le texte d'un de mes messages') and immediately scopes it with a hard constraint (within 15 minutes of sending). An agent can distinguish it from send_message (creates) and delete_message (removes) without opening another schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition — only the user's own messages, only within 15 minutes of sending — which tells the agent when this tool is even applicable. It does not, however, route to an alternative for the out-of-window or own-message-only failure cases.

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