update_a_message

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Idempotent' and 'Modifies an existing record in place', which are consistent. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or behavioral nuances beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise, using only two brief sentences and a header line. It front-loads the action with 'WRITE · updates data · Messages' and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool has 2 parameters with complete schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers the basic update action and idempotency. However, it does not mention return value or any constraints, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'a message', explicitly saying 'Update a message' and 'Modifies an existing record in place'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_a_new_message and delete_a_message by specifying it's an update operation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when updating a message, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other update methods.

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