Update Message

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the important constraint about editing only one's own messages, but does not disclose other potential behaviors such as error handling, limitations on editing media messages, or that the text parameter replaces existing content entirely.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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 mutation tool with three well-described parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, the fromMe constraint, and implicitly that only text content can be changed (via the text parameter). Minor gaps such as media handling or failure scenarios do not significantly impact completeness for this simple 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 input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (text, message_id, remote_jid), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 'Edit' and the resource 'previously sent WhatsApp message', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. The constraint 'Only works for your own messages (fromMe: true)' adds scope and distinguishes it from sending new messages or deleting existing ones.

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 clear context that this tool is for editing previously sent messages, and explicitly notes the fromMe restriction, which serves as an exclusion. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of siblings like delete_message or send_text, leaving some guidance implicit.

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