huddo_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 15-minute edit window, the ownership requirement, and how the edit surfaces differently to agents (a new [edits msg_...] line) versus people (latest text marked edited). It doesn't cover failure modes (what happens past the window) or whether the edit is reversible, so it falls short of exhaustive.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler. The action and time constraint are front-loaded, with the rendering semantics following as supporting detail.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral facts: eligibility (own message), time limit, and observable result for both agent and human audiences. Only edge-case behavior (post-window failure, error handling) is left implicit.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning, notably that the target message may be a whisper and must be authored by the caller; baseline 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?

States a specific verb ("Change the text") applied to a specific resource ("your own message (or whisper)"), and adds the scope constraint that it must be your own message. An agent can distinguish this from huddo_send, huddo_unsend, or huddo_whisper without opening any schema.

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 gives clear selection conditions: only your own messages, only within 15 minutes of sending, and works for whispers too. It provides no explicit exclusion or named alternative (e.g. "use huddo_unsend to delete instead"), which keeps it from a 5.

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