forward_message

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It doesn't mention that forwarding copies messages, preserves the source, or any permission/rate-limit considerations. With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is known, but the description contributes nothing extra.

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 short sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, but it also omits substantive information. It earns high marks for brevity but loses a point for not using the space to add value.

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 five parameters, optional flags, and a mutation operation, the description is too sparse to be complete. It doesn't clarify the behavior of silent and drop_author, nor does it hint at response structure. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document returns, but the overall contextual load is high and unmet.

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 mentions none of the five parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which are somewhat self-explanatory but miss crucial details like accepted formats for chat identifiers or the effect of silent/drop_author flags.

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 clearly states the action: forwarding messages from one chat to another. It uses a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from siblings like send_message or edit_message. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools, so it doesn't fully meet the highest bar.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters.

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