Edit a sent text message

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

Annotations already mark this as mutating, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the two most operationally important traits beyond those annotations: the edit window and the distinct queued-message behavior, both of which are absent from the schema and annotations.

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 the action and key constraint front-loaded, followed by the queued-message nuance. No filler and no 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with a complete schema and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary timing and queued-behavior context. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful eligibility cue—the messageId must refer to an outbound text message—which the schema's messageId description does not explicitly state.

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?

States a specific action: changing the text of an outbound text message, and delimits scope with the WhatsApp edit window. This clearly separates it from send_text, delete_message, cancel_message, and reply_to_message in the sibling list.

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?

Gives clear context: use this when an outbound text message's content must change, but only within the ~15 minute edit window, and queued messages will get the replacement text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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