zulip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation operation (implied by 'Edit'), has a permission constraint ('only edit messages sent by the bot'), and performs in-place updates. However, it lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or confirmation format beyond 'Confirmation or error message'.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines with examples, a critical constraint, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy, and key 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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description does well: it explains the tool's purpose, usage, constraints, and parameters. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on usage context. A minor gap is lack of error scenario details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'message_id' is explained as 'The ID of the message to edit (from reply confirmation)' and 'content' as 'The new message content'. This clarifies the purpose and source of each parameter beyond the bare schema types.

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 specific action ('Edit a message') and resource ('the bot previously sent'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'send_message' (create new) or 'reply' (create response). It explicitly identifies the bot as the actor and specifies the target as previously sent 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to update a previous reply in-place') with concrete examples ('progress updates, correcting mistakes') and a critical exclusion ('Can only edit messages sent by the bot'). This clearly differentiates it from alternatives like 'send_message' for new messages.

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