edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — the message must be one you sent — but says nothing about what fields are editable, time limits on edits, permission requirements, or whether the edit is reversible or visible to recipients.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of leaving gaps rather than being optimally sized for a mutation tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty parameter schema, the description is the only information source — yet it omits how the target message is referenced, what may be edited, and what the result looks like. Far too thin for an edit operation.

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?

The schema declares zero parameters, which is anomalous for a mutation tool: there is no visible way to identify the target message or supply new content. The nominal 0-param baseline of 4 does not hold here because the emptiness looks like an omission rather than a genuinely argument-free call, and the description adds nothing to compensate.

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 (edit a message) plus a scope constraint (one you sent), which separates it from siblings like send, forward, delete, and pin. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the verb+resource pair is 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus delete, forward, or send — e.g. whether an edited message can be re-edited, or what the alternative is when editing is not permitted. The agent must infer all usage conditions.

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