forward_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., that a copy of the message is created in the target chat), any required permissions, or what the API returns. This lack of transparency could lead an agent to make incorrect assumptions about the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Forward a message to another chat or user'), followed by a concise but necessary clarification about receive_id types. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the parameter semantics adequately but omits important contextual details such as return value, side effects, and prerequisites. For a mutation-like operation (forwarding a message), this leaves some gaps, making it minimally complete but not thorough.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely duplicates the schema's parameter explanations (e.g., receive_id formats and receive_id_type default), adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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', making the action specific and distinct from sibling tools like send_message_as_bot or reply_message. It accurately conveys the core functionality without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to forward an existing message to another chat or user. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'forward' implies a distinct operation from sending or replying, so the usage context is adequately clear.

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