forwardMessage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two important limitations (service messages and protected content cannot be forwarded) and the success return value. It could go further by noting required permissions or that the message is copied rather than moved, but the core behavioral constraints are present.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the constraints and return value are stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core action, exceptions, and return value, and the schema documents all parameters. However, with no output schema and 10 parameters, plus closely related siblings like forwardMessages and copyMessage, the description should have provided more guidance on how this tool fits among them. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Forward messages') and the resource, and it adds meaningful scope ('of any kind') with constraints. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this single-message tool from the sibling forwardMessages, so differentiation is incomplete.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like forwardMessages, copyMessage, or sendMessage. The only usage-related information is a negative condition (service messages and protected content can't be forwarded), which does not help an agent choose among related forwarding/copying tools.

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