tg_forward

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as whether forwarding copies messages, whether the original is retained, or what happens on failure.

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 eight words and contains no filler; the action and direction are front-loaded. Any gaps are matters of substance rather than conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral details, the definition is thin for a tool that must take three required parameters. The annotations cover mutability, but an agent still lacks information about return values, errors, prerequisites, or usage boundaries.

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 compensate, but it only loosely maps to the three parameters: 'messages' suggests message_ids and 'one chat to another' suggests from_chat/to_chat. It provides no format, type, constraint, or relationship details beyond the schema itself.

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 a specific verb ('Forward') and resource ('messages') with direction ('from one chat to another'), clearly stating the core operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like tg_send or tg_message, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the name alone.

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