openclaw_message_action

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

With no annotations, the description partially fills the gap by stating it 'mutates gateway state', indicating side effects. However, it does not disclose destructive potential, authentication needs, rate limits, or specific behavioral traits beyond the basic mutation.

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 sentences that efficiently convey purpose, examples, and a key behavioral trait (wraps message.action, mutates state). No unnecessary words; information is front-loaded.

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?

As a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., message existence), or the meaning of 'additionalProperties: true' in the schema. The tool's complexity (4 params, mutation) demands more context.

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 50% (action and instance have descriptions; messageId and sessionId do not). The tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema; it only gives examples for 'action' but does not explain the role of messageId and sessionId, failing to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 tool triggers a message-level action, provides concrete examples (retry, mark-as-handled, attach to a session), and notes it wraps 'message.action'. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like openclaw_sessions_send or openclaw_send, which also operate on messages.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its purpose (message-level actions) but fails to mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it compares to other similar tools in the sibling list.

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