discord_forward_message

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

Annotations provide only basic flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds genuine value: the attribution-preservation trait of the native forward, the permission requirement, and the return behavior ('Returns a confirmation'). No contradiction with annotations exists; it could have gone further by noting failure modes, but it covers the key behavioral traits well.

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?

Four sentences with zero filler: the core action and its defining trait come first, followed by scope, the routing alternative, and the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and the return-value note is justified because there is no output schema to convey that information.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential decision and invocation information: what it does, where it works, the required permission, the return behavior, and the sibling to choose instead. It is slightly shy of perfect only because it omits edge-case caveats (e.g., restrictions on forwarding certain message types), but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (channel/thread context, message ID, destination). Per the baseline rule, the description need not repeat parameter details. The small additions it makes — 'Works across text channels and threads' — merely confirm what the schema already states, so no compensatory credit is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Forward an existing message to another channel') and adds the distinctive mechanism ('Discord's native forward, which preserves the original attribution'), which separates it from ordinary message-sending. It also explicitly names discord_send_message as the sibling it is not, making the purpose unmistakable even among 80+ sibling tools.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use (forwarding an existing message with attribution) and a when-not-to-use with a named alternative ('Use discord_send_message to compose new content instead'). It also states the operational prerequisite ('Requires the Send Messages permission in the target channel'), which is exactly the kind of precondition an agent needs before invoking.

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