buzz_forward

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it creates a kind-9 reference pill and does not copy text, and clarifies target formats. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 dense sentence that packs in the action, the distinction from copying, the parameter relationships, and target formats. It is front-loaded with the core behavior. No wasted words, though it could be broken into two sentences for readability.

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?

Given the complexity of forwarding with multiple target types and optional comment, the description covers the essential semantics. It does not describe the return value or failure modes, but for a forwarding action without an output schema, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that source_channel+event identify the message, and by detailing the accepted formats for `to`. It also clarifies that comment is optional and empty allowed, which the schema already hints at. It compensates for the undocumented source_channel.

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 states a specific action (forward/quote), the resource (a message), and the key semantic distinction (references, does not copy). This clearly separates it from buzz_post, buzz_reply, and buzz_dm_send, even without naming siblings.

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 clearly explains what the tool does and how the target is specified (channel or person with multiple formats), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. The context implies it is for forwarding rather than replying or posting fresh, but no exclusions are given.

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