edit_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Edits', which signals mutation, but omits important behavioral details such as whether existing fields are replaced, what happens if only content or only embeds is provided, and what failure modes exist (e.g., attempting to edit a non-bot or deleted message). This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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 a single sentence that leads with the verb 'Edits' and packs the resource scope into a compact phrase. There is no filler, redundant wording, or repetition of schema details.

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 tool is simple and the schema fully documents its parameters, but with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks information about return values, failure conditions, and how content and embeds interact when only one is supplied. The description is sufficient to attempt a call, but it is not fully self-sufficient for confident invocation.

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%, as all four parameters (channel_id, message_id, content, embeds) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 states a clear verb ('Edits') and a specific resource ('previously sent message by the bot in a Discord channel'), so the core action is unambiguous. It implicitly differentiates this from send_message and delete_message through the phrase 'previously sent', but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'Previously sent message by the bot' gives useful context and implies that the bot can only edit its own prior messages, which is a relevant constraint. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over send_message or delete_message, nor does it mention that content and embeds are optional replacements. The usage guidance is mostly implied rather than prescribed.

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