forward_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that dry_run defaults to true, which is already visible in the schema default, and says nothing about whether forwarding actually delivers mail, whether the original is mutated, or what side effects occur.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the core action plus the safety-relevant default are front-loaded. It is efficiently sized for what it attempts, though the second sentence duplicates a schema default.

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 mutation tool with six undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the gap on parameter meaning and mutation side effects is significant.

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% for 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It explains only dry_run (a schema default) and says nothing about uid, to, folder, body_prefix, or include_original_attachments.

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 existing message'), which is immediately actionable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from adjacent siblings like reply_message or send_message, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to forward versus reply or send a new message, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the message needing to exist or the caller needing send permissions. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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