configureEmailForward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool mutates state ('Create or update') and explains the forwarding model, but it does not disclose idempotency, whether existing forwards are replaced or appended, permission requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The external documentation link is not a substitute for self-contained behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and data model efficiently. It includes a documentation link without padding. Every element earns 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain what happens when the forward already exists, whether all forwarding destinations are replaced, what the API returns on success or failure, or any prerequisites. The external link may help but the description itself is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents every parameter. The description adds only a high-level mapping of local part to destination addresses, which is mildly helpful but does not meaningfully go beyond what the parameter descriptions already state. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('Create or update') applied to a specific resource ('email forward') and clarifies the data model ('local part → destination addresses'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listEmailForwards and deleteEmailForward without needing to inspect schemas.

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 'Create or update' implies when to use it — for creating a new forward or modifying an existing one — but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like listEmailForwards and deleteEmailForward are not referenced, so some inference is required.

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