whatsapp_forward_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It gestures at a "forwarded" marking behaviour but the sentence is cut off before explaining it, and says nothing about what happens on an invalid message reference, whether anything is mutated beyond delivery, or what permissions/account context is required.

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 a single unfinished sentence ending in an ellipsis, so it cannot front-load anything beyond the media-type list. Brevity here reflects truncation, not efficiency.

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 cross-chat forward operation with an empty schema, no annotations and no output schema, the description omits every operational detail an agent needs: source reference, destination chat, account selection, and the forwarded-mark semantics it started to describe.

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 schema declares zero properties, yet the description clearly implies required inputs: which message to forward and which target chat. Because those inputs exist only implicitly and are absent from the schema, an agent has no documented way to supply them – this is a real deficiency rather than a vacuous zero-parameter tool.

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 verb and resource are stated ("Forwards one WhatsApp message") and the supported media types are enumerated, which is helpful. But the sentence is truncated mid-clause ("marked as..."), so the full scope — including the forwarded-label behaviour — is never completed, and no sibling tool is named for differentiation.

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 guidance on when to forward versus composing a new message with whatsapp_send_message or whatsapp_send_file, both of which are siblings that could plausibly be used instead. No prerequisites (connection state, account selection) are mentioned.

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