discord_edit_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds the ownership restriction, but it omits whether the edit fully replaces prior content, permission requirements, or rate-limit behavior. The 'Returns: Confirmation.' line is minimal context, not real behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the action and the constraint; nothing is padded. The 'Returns: Confirmation.' line is largely redundant given a dedicated output schema exists, which is the only wasted element.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential constraint (bot-owned messages only). An agent has enough to call it correctly; only replace-vs-append semantics and failure modes are left unstated.

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 100% and each of the three parameters carries a substantive description (ID patterns, 2000-char Markdown limit, bot-ownership requirement). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Replace the text of a message') and adds a scope qualifier ('the bot sent') that separates it from discord_send_message and discord_delete_message. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the ownership restriction makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 one hard precondition — the message must have been sent by the bot — which implies when the tool is applicable. It offers no explicit routing guidance versus alternatives such as discord_delete_message (for removal) or discord_send_message (for new content), so usage must be inferred.

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