Forward an email

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

Annotations already indicate writable, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds the optional attachment inclusion but does not elaborate on side effects like marking the original email as forwarded or requiring specific mailbox access.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences and 14 words, with key info front-loaded. However, given the 6 parameters, slightly more detail could improve completeness without harming conciseness.

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?

The description does not cover return values (no output schema) and leaves multiple parameters unexplained. For a tool with 6 parameters and many siblings, it is insufficiently complete.

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?

Only two parameters are explained implicitly ('to' via 'new recipients' and 'include_attachments' via the option). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to clarify the meaning of 'uid', 'html', 'text', and 'mailbox', leaving significant gaps.

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 ('forwards'), the resource ('existing message'), and an important option ('optionally includes original attachments'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like send_email or reply_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reply_email), nor when not to use it. Given many sibling tools, this omission reduces clarity for an AI agent.

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