forward_message

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and "Sends immediately" is its only disclosure — it usefully signals that this is an outbound, non-reversible side effect rather than a draft. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether attachments and original body are carried over, whether recipients see the original sender, or what is returned, which are the material risks for an outbound mail action.

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?

Both sentences are tight and front-loaded, with the action first and the immediacy caveat second. The brevity crosses into under-specification given a mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema coverage, so the economy costs more than it saves.

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 three-parameter outbound messaging action with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the identifier, the comment field, and the side-effect profile. Only the side-effect hint is present, leaving the agent without enough to call it confidently or predict the result.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. It implies what id ("a message") and to ("recipients") mean, but never clarifies that id is a message identifier nor what form it takes, and the comment parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a third of the inputs undefined everywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Forward a message") plus the target ("the given recipients"), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It does not distinguish the action from siblings such as send_mail or reply_message, which also emit mail, so the agent gets the operation but not its boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. whether the message must exist in a folder you can access), and no direction toward alternatives like reply_message or create_draft. The only contextual hint is "Sends immediately", which implies no draft stage but is not framed as usage guidance.

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