forward_received_email

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 does disclose the 'from' must be verified, which is a useful constraint, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., that the email is actually sent), any authorization requirements, or what happens to the original email. For a mutation action, this is a notable gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. It consists of two sentences with no filler. The HTTP endpoint is included but does not bloat the description. 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (4 params, no output schema) and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential action and the key 'from' constraint. However, it omits usage guidance and does not mention any prerequisites beyond the verified sender, which for a forwarding action might be expected. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond repeating the 'from' constraint already present in the schema. It does not clarify the 'to' array format or the subject override beyond what is in 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 clearly states the action: 'Forward a received email to other recipients.' It specifies the verb (forward), the resource (received email), and the target (recipients). It also includes the HTTP endpoint, which adds precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_received_email and reply_received_email.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the 'from' parameter must be a verified sending address, but that is a parameter constraint, not usage context. There is no explicit statement about when to choose forward over reply or delete, nor any exclusions.

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