forward_email

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

The description adds the behavioral trait that the original email is quoted below, and notes that the message is optional. The annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. It does not detail side effects beyond the quoted content, but with annotations lowering the bar, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word earns its place. It is efficient and clear without unnecessary detail.

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 tool has 7 parameters but a 100% schema description, the description is adequately complete for a standard forward operation. It does not cover return values, but with no output schema and the simplicity of the action, this is not a major gap. The lack of explicit alternative guidance is a minor omission.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning: 'optional additional message' mirrors the schema's body description, and 'Original email is quoted below' is behavioral rather than parameter-specific. It does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Forward an email to new recipients with optional additional message.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like send_email and reply_email, and the mention of 'new recipients' and 'optional additional message' adds useful scope.

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 clear context by indicating this is for forwarding an existing email to new recipients, which inherently contrasts with sending a new email or replying. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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