Hub Edit

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It gives examples of editable content (progress lines, files) but omits critical behaviors like permissions, ownership requirements, what happens to other message parts, and error conditions 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?

The description is a single sentence with some wasted phrasing ('where the place can edit') and is not front-loaded well. It packs key information into a convoluted clause, reducing clarity despite its brevity.

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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks necessary details about parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and error handling, leaving an agent with too little to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description should explain all parameters. It explains 'n' (from hub_say) and hints at 'text' and 'files' through examples, but leaves 'who' completely undocumented and does not describe the format or structure of any parameter beyond vague hints.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a message the hub sent'), and references the sibling tool hub_say as the source of 'n'. This sufficiently distinguishes it from sending new messages, though the phrasing is awkward.

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 implies usage when you want to modify a message previously sent via hub_say, giving a scenario. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives to this tool.

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