bale_forward_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about permission requirements, whether the forwarded message retains sender attribution, rate limits, or what happens on invalid message_id — all significant for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and parameter detail the tool needs.

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 needn't be explained, but with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and four required parameters, the description is far too thin for a mutation tool. It omits permission, attribution, and parameter-shape context an agent would need to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description only loosely maps 'existing message' to message_id and 'another chat or user' to to_chat_id. It explains nothing about the from/to chat_id vs chat_type distinction that the schema leaves 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 (forward) and resource (existing message) with a scope (another chat or user). It implicitly distinguishes itself from bale_send_message by emphasizing forwarding an 'existing' message, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the message must already exist and be visible to the caller), and no routing between this and sibling messaging tools like bale_send_message or bale_edit_message. Usage is only vaguely implied.

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