slack_edit_message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: no signature/attribution is appended, existing structured blocks are wiped by blocks:[], and Slack may retain an edited indicator. The mention of a blocks:[] argument that does not exist in the input schema creates some ambiguity about what the tool actually accepts.

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?

Three short front-loaded sentences with the core behavior first and side effects after; little waste. The blocks:[] clause is the only part that is not self-explanatory in 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?

Annotations cover the mutation/safety profile and no output schema exists, and the description covers side effects like block clearing. It omits failure behavior (what happens when a message is not editable or ts is stale) and references a blocks parameter not present in the schema, leaving a gap for a destructive write tool.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already explains ts, text, and channel including the 'never append a signature' rule that the description repeats. The description adds nothing about parse or the missing blocks field, so it neither compensates for the gap nor contributes new parameter meaning.

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+resource ('Replace an editable message') and pins down the semantics with 'exact supplied body'. It implicitly separates itself from slack_send_message (edit vs. create) but never names or explicitly contrasts that sibling.

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?

'Only edit when authorized' is the sole usage constraint and it is vague about what authorization means or how to verify it. No explicit alternative is offered (e.g., use slack_send_message for new messages, slack_search_messages to locate ts), so routing must be inferred from the sibling list.

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