forward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this creates a new message, requires prior access to both chats, whether media/albums are preserved, or rate limits. Only 'between chats' hints at the two-endpoint nature of the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. Its brevity is partly because it omits necessary information, but on structure alone it is clean.

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?

Forwarding is a non-trivial operation and here there are no annotations, no output schema describing the result, and no parameters for specifying source, destination, or which messages to forward. The description leaves the agent without the information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 declares zero parameters, which normally earns the baseline of 4, but the description's phrase 'between chats' strongly implies source and destination chat identifiers (and message selection) that the empty schema cannot express. That gap between implied inputs and an empty schema is a genuine deficiency, so a 3 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?

States a specific verb (Forward) and resource (messages) with a scope qualifier (between chats), which is enough to distinguish it from most siblings like send or edit. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest alternative (send), so it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus send, edit, or grab, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing dialog or source message. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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