Send Queued Mail to Alternate Host

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds nothing beyond them. There is no mention of what happens to the original queued messages, whether rerouting is reversible, or that it targets an external host.

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?

While short, the single sentence is uninformative rather than concise. This is under-specification, not economical phrasing, and there is no front-loaded explanation of the operation.

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 mutating, open-world tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. An agent gets no information about side effects, required permissions, or expected outcome.

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%, so the schema already documents mail_keys, queue_type, and alternate_host, including the queue_type enum. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 only restates the HTTP endpoint 'POST /v1/queue/reroute', which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not state in plain language that the tool sends queued mail to an alternate host; that information lives only in the title, not the description body.

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 whatsoever on when to use this versus siblings like fortimail.queue.delete, fortimail.queue.download, or fortimail.queue.view. The agent is given no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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