put_inbox_apps_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update' and shows the HTTP method. It does not explain whether this is a partial update or full replacement, what happens to existing fields, whether it is idempotent, or what response to expect. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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 with the key action and endpoint front-loaded. It is appropriately compact, but it is minimal to the point of omitting important context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Despite the rich schema, the description lacks essential context for an agent to invoke this correctly: no explanation of the two message identification approaches, no indication of required permissions or auth, no note about the inboxAppId path parameter being required, and no behavioral or return-value information. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is incomplete.

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 high (86%), and the schema explains most parameters well, including the dual identification behavior of id and externalMessageId. The description itself adds little parameter meaning beyond showing inboxAppId in the path. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('an Inbox App Message'), and the HTTP endpoint adds precision. It distinguishes update from creation at a basic level, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like post_inbox_apps_message, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as post_inbox_apps_message or post_inbox_apps_note. The description gives no context about prerequisites, message identification modes, or scenarios that call for an update, so an agent must infer the intended usage.

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