messages_forward

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description largely echoes that ('reaches other people... deletes, or redirects data'). The added requirement to confirm with the user before executing is genuinely useful behavioral context, but the 'deletes' wording is boilerplate drift for a forwarding operation and adds no real disclosure about side effects.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the endpoint trailer is compact, but the middle sentence is generic safety boilerplate that partially duplicates the annotations and blurs the actual behavior of the tool.

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 four required parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations explaining inputs, the description needs to carry the burden of explaining the source chat/channel/message and destination semantics. It does not, leaving an agent to guess how to construct a valid forward call.

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% and the description explains none of the four required parameters. 'One or more chats' weakly implies toChatIds is a list, but chatId vs channelId vs messageId relationships and the source/destination distinction are left entirely to inference from names.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Forward a message to one or more chats') and the endpoint/gRPC/socket trailer confirms scope. It is clear enough to separate from generic send/reply tools, though it does not name a specific sibling to contrast with.

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?

It advises getting user confirmation before acting, which is directional but not a when-to-use rule. No guidance on how this differs from messages_send, messages_reply, or messages_send_media, which all move content between chats.

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