mail_forward_add

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, but it only restates the create operation. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, activation behavior, or what happens to existing forwards.

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 is concise to the point of being terse, but 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 tool with nested params, no annotations, no output schema, and many similar siblings, this description is far too sparse. An agent cannot determine what inputs are required, what the response looks like, or how this differs from adjacent mail tools.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including the nested forward fields (server_id, source, destination, active), so schema coverage is high. The description adds no meaning beyond this baseline, leaving a 3 as the appropriate score.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Create a mail forward'. While it is nearly a restatement of the tool name and does not differentiate from siblings like mail_alias_add or mail_forward_delete, it is unambiguous about the core operation.

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 about when to choose this tool over related creation tools such as mail_alias_add or mail_catchall_add, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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