Update Chat Message

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds a meaningful behavioral/permission constraint: only the sender can update. It also clarifies supported content types and fields)Skip the destructive/read-only profile is already covered by annotations, so the added sender restriction is valuable context.

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 with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the capability list is compact and informative without repeating schema content.

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?

The description leaves out important invocation details such as whether omitted optional fields preserve existing values or reset to defaults, and there is no output schema to clarify the return value. The sender restriction and supported fields are useful, but for a mutation tool with optional parameters, some update semantics are missing.

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 already documents all parameters. The description repeats that format, mentions, and importance are supported, but adds no new semantic details such as default behavior or partial-vs-full update semantics.

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 (update/edit) and the resource (chat message), and adds that it applies to previously sent messages. It distinguishes from channel-message tools through the word 'chat', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 a clear, important usage condition: only the message sender can update their own messages. It implies this tool is for editing existing sent chat messages, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like update_channel_message or send_chat_message.

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