gmail_inbox.forward

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

Despite no annotations, the description only states what the tool does without disclosing effects like whether it modifies the thread or adds a draft. Missing details like permissions needed or side effects.

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?

Single sentence, 10 words, no fluff. However, it could be expanded slightly to add value without becoming verbose.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the output is, how the draft relates to the thread, or how this differs from similar tools like gmail_composer.save_draft.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters. Only 'thread_id' is implied by the phrase 'for a message in a thread', but body, subject, and user_id are not explained.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('forward draft'), and the context ('for a message in a thread'). This differentiates from sibling tools like gmail_inbox.reply (reply to thread) and gmail_archive_thread (archive).

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., gmail_composer.send, gmail_inbox.reply). No mention of prerequisites like opening the thread or that it creates a draft that must be sent later.

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