Forward messages

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose, such as duplicate handling, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the original messages.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action efficiently.

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?

For a simple three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete enough to invoke. It omits edge-case behavior such as permission failures or whether messages remain in the source chat, but there is no output schema requiring return-value explanation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters: from, to, and message_ids. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Forward messages,' with the scope 'from one chat into another.' It is easy to distinguish from read-only siblings like history and search, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from write-oriented siblings such as send or edit.

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 gives no guidance about when to use forwarding versus alternatives like send or edit, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing access to both chats. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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