basecamp_update_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing message,' which merely restates the tool's name and provides no insight into side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutating 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 extremely concise with no irrelevant words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. A single sentence that adds minimal information over the tool name is not effective, though it has no structural issues.

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?

Given the four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is contextually incomplete. It does not explain partial update behavior (e.g., only content or only subject), what the response might contain, or any error conditions. The agent lacks essential context for reliable 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It does not mention that content and subject are the updatable fields, nor does it clarify the roles of project_id and message_id beyond what the parameter names themselves imply. This leaves the agent to infer semantics purely from property names.

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 identifies the action (update) and the resource (existing message), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_message or pin_message. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, leaving some scope ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the need for an existing message_id, or that this tool is the appropriate choice for modifying message content or subject. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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