Edit a message you sent

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, and it does. It states that only text changes (attachments kept), that edits to others' messages are rejected by the backend, that the message must be in recent history, and the default oase behavior. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that go beyond the schema, providing clear expectations for the agent.

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 concise set of sentences, each adding value without redundancy. It front-loads the main action and then details the necessary constraints and defaults, making it easy to parse quickly. No fluff or irrelevant details.

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 relatively simple edit tool, the description covers all essential aspects: how to identify the target message, default behavior, restrictions (own messages, recent history), and side effects (only text changes). Without an output schema, it doesn't need to describe return values. The description is complete for correct invocation.

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 already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (message, oase_id, message_id). The description adds helpful context, such as where to obtain message_id and the default behavior for oase_id, which enhances understanding but is not strictly necessary given the schema. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the action: 'Edit the text of a chat message this agent sent earlier', specifying the verb (edit) and resource (chat message) with a precise scope (own messages only). It distinguishes from siblings like send_message or delete_message by focusing on modifying an existing message rather than creating or removing one.

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 provides useful context on when to use the tool: it mentions getting message_id from send_message or read_messages output, and the constraint of editing only your own messages. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for different tasks (e.g., update_post for posts), but the resource and action differentiation is implicit. The guidance about oase_id defaulting is also given.

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