td_forward_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It says 'copy/forward' but does not clarify whether the original is preserved or moved, whether the operation requires membership in both dialogs, or how the system handles duplicate forwards. No side effects, permissions, or error conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer 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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to scan. However, it is so brief that it omits details that could enhance usability, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 mutating file operation with no output schema, the description fails to explain return values, error cases, or expected side effects. It also does not mention prerequisites like user permissions or dialog memberships. Given the tool's complexity (3 required parameters) and lack of annotations, this description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it with confidence.

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% with each parameter having a basic description ('Target dialog ID', 'Message ID to forward', 'Source dialog ID'). The tool description adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (copy/forward), resource (file), and scope (from one dialog to another), which clearly differentiates it from upload/download/delete operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling td_bulk_forward, leaving some ambiguity about when the single-file variant is appropriate.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like td_bulk_forward, td_upload_file, or td_send_message. The description implies a use case (forwarding a file between dialogs) but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or typical invocation scenarios.

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