forward_message

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. Its only behavioral claim is 'DESTRUCTIVE: requires confirm=true', which merely restates the confirm parameter's schema description and does not explain what actually happens when messages are forwarded, whether original messages are modified or preserved, or what errors might occur. This is insufficient for a tool requiring confirmation for a supposedly destructive operation.

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 brief and the core purpose appears first. The 'DESTRUCTIVE: requires confirm=true' parenthetical is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall line is compact and front-loaded, avoiding unnecessary wording.

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 annotations, no output schema, low parameter coverage, and a forwarded-message operation, an agent needs more context about which chats are supported, what happens to the source messages, and what the response indicates. The description only states the purpose and a confirmation requirement, leaving too many operational details unspecified for reliable invocation.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It vaguely hints at to_chat with 'another chat', but from_chat and message_ids receive no explanation beyond their names. The confirm parameter's semantics are already fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no new parameter insight.

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 a concrete object ('messages to another chat'), so an agent can tell this is about relaying existing messages rather than composing new ones. It does not explicitly call out the sibling send_message, but the verb 'forward' creates enough distinction. A 5 would require a clearer contrast with send_message.

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 given for when to choose this tool over send_message, edit_message, or delete_message. The 'confirm=true' requirement is a condition for execution but not a usage-selection rule. The agent is left to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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