forward_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only explains ID format and types, but omits important traits like whether the original message is copied or moved, permission requirements, or any limitations.

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?

Two sentences with 60 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous information. Efficient structure.

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?

The description adequately explains ID type handling and defaults, but lacks information about return values or error handling. Since no output schema is provided, the agent is left guessing what the tool returns upon success or failure.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, reiterating ID types and default behavior. The schema already covers the same information.

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 verb 'Forward' and the resource 'a message to another chat or user'. It distinguishes the tool as an official API for forwarding messages, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like send_message_as_bot or reply_message.

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 tool vs alternatives. It explains ID types and defaults but does not provide context for choosing this over other messaging tools like send_to_group or send_to_user.

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