forward

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

The annotations already establish that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds a useful implementation trait by identifying this as a wrapper over create_draft with seed=forward, but it does not disclose other behaviors like account/recipient requirements, how the original message is affected, or the actual side effect of sending immediately. This is moderate transparency but not outstanding.

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 two sentences and every sentence is informative: the first identifies the operation, the second sets expectations about how it composers with the existing create_draft API. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan.

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?

Combined with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description provides enough for the core invoke workflow. The wrapper-creating-draft note is valuable context, but the description remains thin on how to choose between forward and sibling tools with overlapping intent, so it is not fully self-sufficient.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the description carries no additional parameter-specific semantics. The 'seed=forward' note adds context but does not clarify individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Forward an existing message to new recipients.' It also positions the tool as a convenience wrapper over create_draft with seed=forward, which helps locate it in the API surface. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from reply/reply_all or send_email, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

The phrase 'Convenience wrapper over create_draft with seed=forward' gives meaningful usage context: this is the forward-specific version of creating a draft, and the schema's send_now option clarifies immediate sending vs. draft-only. Exclusions or explicit alternatives such as 'use reply when preserving original recipients' are not stated, so it only partially explains when to pick this over sibling tools.

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