copyMessages

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, and it does so thoroughly. It states that unfindable/un-copyable messages are skipped, enumerates non-copyable message types, gives the quiz-poll condition, notes that album grouping is preserved, and specifies the success return. This is unusually complete for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Each sentence in the description delivers a distinct operational fact: core action, failure behavior, unsupported types, quiz condition, comparison to forwardMessages, album handling, and return format. There is no filler or repetition of schema content, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious details: partial failure behavior, unsupported message types, special poll condition, relationship to forwardMessages, album grouping, and return value. The schema handles parameter details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this 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?

The input schema already describes all 8 parameters, including chat_id, message_ids, and remove_caption, so the baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral context such as skipped messages and album grouping, but it does not clarify individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Copy messages of any kind.' It also distinguishes the tool from forwardMessages by noting that copied messages don't retain a link to the original. However, it never explicitly differentiates copyMessages from its sibling copyMessage, and 'any kind' is immediately qualified by a list of non-copyable types.

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 gives clear context by explicitly comparing the method to forwardMessages and calling out the key tradeoff: copied messages lack a link to the original. This lets an agent choose between copying and forwarding in many cases. It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance relative to copyMessage or the send* family, but the batch nature is strongly implied by the plural name and message_ids parameter.

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