bale_edit_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Sent previously' and 'text message' imply the target must exist and be of text type, which is some value, but it omits whether the caller must own the message, permission/auth requirements, reversibility, and error behavior for non-text or non-editable messages.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundancy; the operation and its target are stated immediately. It is arguably under-specified rather than wasteful, but structurally clean.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage on four parameters, and only a one-line description leaves significant gaps. The output schema covers return values, but the missing permission model, constraints, and parameter meaning make this incomplete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It never mentions chat_id, message_id, new_text, or the chat_type default, leaving their format and meaning undocumented. Only a weak implied link ('text' to new_text) exists.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('existing text message') with a scope qualifier ('sent previously in a chat'). It is distinguishable from siblings like bale_send_message, bale_delete_message, and bale_forward_message, though it never explicitly names them. The 'text message' qualifier usefully hints at a type restriction.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to any alternative such as bale_send_message for new messages. No prerequisites (e.g., must be the sender, must be within an edit window) are stated.

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