forward_messages

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description needn't restate that forwarding is a non-destructive write. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail not in the annotations — that album grouping is preserved — but omits attribution ('Forwarded from'), required permissions, and any failure conditions.

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 filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing of a richer statement.

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?

Seven parameters with 14% schema coverage, no output schema, and no explanation of return values or batch limits — the description should do much more work here. As written, an agent cannot confidently determine what protect_content or direct_messages_topic_id do or what happens when some message_ids are invalid.

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 only 14% (in fact only chat_id is annotated), leaving message_ids, message_thread_id, disable_notification, protect_content, and direct_messages_topic_id wholly undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap; only the self-evident naming of chat_id/from_chat_id/message_ids carries any meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Forward multiple messages') and one notable behavior (album grouping preserved), so the operation is immediately understandable. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools forward_message (singular) or copy_messages, which an agent must pick between without help from the description.

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, and no mention of alternatives such as forward_message for a single message or copy_message/copy_messages when attribution should be dropped. The only implicit cue is 'multiple messages at once', which the agent must infer selects this over forward_message.

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