edit_scheduled_message_via_name_or_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not disclose permissions, whether partial edits leave unspecified fields unchanged, side effects, or error behavior. It only lists the editable aspects, which is minimal for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity means it also omits useful context.

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 5-parameter edit mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. The schema covers parameter-level details, but the description should at least mention prerequisites, partial-update behavior, or that unknown IDs should be resolved first.

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 the schema already explains each parameter in detail. The description only maps 'text, target, or send time' to the parameters and adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('scheduled message') plus the editable fields, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the regular message editing sibling or the other scheduled-message siblings, so it falls 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_message for non-scheduled messages, create_scheduled_message, or delete_scheduled_message. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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