Forward messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state and can reach external chats. The description adds no further behavioral context such as whether source messages are preserved, permission requirements, or what happens with invalid ids.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the action and scope, making it efficient for a simple forwarding tool.

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 core operation is clear, but with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and minimal annotations, the definition omits chat identifier formats, multiple-id semantics, and expected outcomes. It is adequate for a simple mutation but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps the concepts reasonably ('by id' for messageIds, 'from one chat to another' for fromChat/toChat) but does not explain accepted chat identifier formats or that messageIds is an array of positive integers.

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 and resource ('Forward messages') and clarifies the mechanism ('by id from one chat to another'). This clearly distinguishes it from send_message, edit_message, and delete_messages, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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?

Forwarding existing messages by id implies the use case versus sending or editing, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. The intended action is inferable but not fully guided.

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