waha_forward_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('forward') but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool (forwarding implies modifying chat state) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively in a WhatsApp automation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters (chatId, messageId, toChatId, session). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('forward') and resource ('a message to another chat'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'waha_send_text' or 'waha_edit_message', but the verb 'forward' is distinct enough for basic identification.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'waha_send_text' for new messages or 'waha_edit_message' for modifying existing ones. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing message to forward, or exclusions for when forwarding might not be appropriate.

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