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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by explaining the copy-send approach, clarifying that the original message remains unchanged. This provides behavioral insight beyond annotations, though it does not cover idempotency or specific side effects.

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 extremely concise, with only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second adds a clarifying mechanism. No wasted words.

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 forward operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior adequately. It might benefit from mentioning that the destination chat must exist or that it only works within the same instance, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 100%, and all four parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 (forward), the resource (WhatsApp message), and the scope (from one chat to another) with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the mechanism (copy-send approach), distinguishing it from a potential reference-preserving forward. No sibling tool has a similar name or purpose.

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 implies usage for forwarding messages but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message or send_whatsapp. No when-not-to-use or exclusion conditions are stated.

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