Mail Forward Message

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the tool name. Annotations are sparse (destructiveHint is false, but there is no readOnlyHint), and the description does not clarify whether forwarding creates a new message, modifies the original, requires permissions, or has side effects. This leaves the agent without essential behavioral information.

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 only one sentence, which is short, but it contains no useful substance—it simply restates the name and mentions the MCP exposure. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, so the sentence does not earn its place.

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?

Even with an output schema and sibling context available, the description omits the core purpose, behavior, and parameter meaning. For a tool with four parameters and no schema-level descriptions, this definition is far too incomplete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides zero explanation of the parameters (message_id, to, body, from_account). The agent must rely solely on raw parameter names and types, with no guidance on formats, semantics, or relationships.

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 is essentially a tautology: it only restates the tool name ('mail_forward_message') and notes that it is exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP. It does not state what the tool does, what resource it acts on, or how it differs from related mail tools. The tool name itself carries the only real meaning.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as mail_reply_message, mail_send_message, or mail_compose_draft. No context, conditions, or exclusions are provided, so an agent is left to infer the appropriate use case entirely.

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