bale_delete_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, yet it only states the mutation. It does not say whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it requires being the sender or an admin, or what 'just_me' implies about scope.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no padding, and the verb is front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than verbose, so conciseness itself is not the failing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive mutation with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description is far too thin. Permission requirements, reversibility, and the just_me/chat_type semantics are all missing.

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% for all 4 parameters, and the description only loosely implies chat_id and message_id ('from a chat'). It says nothing about the meaning or effect of just_me or chat_type, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 verb and resource ('Delete a message') and implies the chat context, so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like bale_edit_message or bale_forward_message, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus bale_edit_message or other message-mutating siblings, and no prerequisites such as required permissions. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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