Editar mensagem

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. The description usefully adds that only messages sent by this account can be edited, but says nothing about permission failures, rate limits, or how edits surface to other users.

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 short sentence with no redundant or filler content, and the scope constraint is stated up front. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 simple edit operation, the schema fully documents inputs and the annotations carry the behavioral profile, so the description's core job is naming purpose and scope — both of which it does. Only edge-case behavior (editing a message once it is no longer editable) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 all four parameters (including the format enum and the 2000-char content limit) are already documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 (Edita) and resource (o texto de uma mensagem), plus the scope constraint 'enviada por esta conta' that limits edits to the caller's own messages. It does not name how it differs from close siblings like send_message, reply_message, or delete_message, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The only hint of applicability is the ownership constraint, which is a scope limit rather than routing guidance.

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