edit_message

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the critical ownership limitation, but does not cover other behavioral aspects such as required permissions, what happens when editing fails, or whether unprovided fields (e.g., embeds) are cleared.

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, concise sentence in Japanese that immediately states the purpose and the key constraint. It contains no superfluous information and is well-structured.

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 relatively simple mutation tool with full parameter descriptions, the description gives the essential purpose and a key limitation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on permissions, error behavior, and post-edit consequences, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (channelId, messageId, content, embeds), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '編集' (edit) and the resource '既存メッセージ' (existing message). It further specifies the important constraint '自分が送信したメッセージのみ' (only messages sent by yourself), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message and delete_message.

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 explicitly communicates a key usage restriction: only messages sent by the user can be edited. This gives clear guidance on when the tool is applicable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or elaborate on error conditions.

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