Forward a Gmail message to new recipients by ID, adding an optional note and CC, with the original attached as .eml and sent immediately.
Forward an email (the original is attached as .eml). Sends immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | Email addresses | |
| id | Yes | Message id from gmail_search / gmail_list_drafts | |
| to | Yes | Email addresses | |
| note | No | Text added above the forwarded message |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/send nature is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the original is attached as .eml, and the message is dispatched immediately with no draft or confirmation step. It omits permission/scope requirements and what is returned, keeping it short of a 5.
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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two facts an agent most needs (attachment behavior, immediate send). No filler, no repetition of the schema.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is sent, in what form, and that it fires immediately. It leaves minor gaps around failure behavior and the return payload, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.
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%, with all four parameters (id, to, cc, note) documented inline, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as id provenance beyond the schema or note placement semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb+resource ('Forward an email') that an agent can distinguish from gmail_reply and gmail_send_email on intent alone. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or state how forwarding differs from replying, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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?
'Sends immediately' implies this is the no-draft path and contrasts with gmail_create_draft, but the description never explicitly says when to forward versus reply or send a new email. Usage is implied rather than guided, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.