tg_forward

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'forward messages' without mentioning side effects, whether the original message is copied or moved, required bot permissions, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 filler or redundancy. It communicates the core action efficiently, though it is under-specified in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how chats are identified (IDs, usernames), how message_ids are used, or what result to expect. The output schema may cover return values, but the description lacks operational context.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only implicitly covers 'from_chat' and 'to_chat' via 'from one chat to another'. The critical 'message_ids' parameter is entirely omitted, leaving its semantics unexplained.

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 uses the specific verb 'forward' with resource 'messages' and clearly indicates the operation from one chat to another. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like tg_send (sending new messages) or tg_edit (modifying messages).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions. The description is purely functional and gives no context for selection.

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