imap_preview_forward_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the tool does not send the email and that it returns a draftId. However, 'freeze' is not fully elaborated — the description does not say whether a server-side draft is created, whether attachments are actually stored, or what the side effects of freezing are beyond the returned draftId.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed immediately by the required next step. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant restating of schema details.

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 preview workflow, the description covers what the agent needs to know: it creates a frozen forward, does not send it, and returns a draftId to use with imap_confirm_send. The rich parameter schema fills in the remaining details, and the absence of an output schema is partly compensated by the explicit draftId mention. It could be more explicit about the 'freeze' semantics, but it is sufficiently complete for confident invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already individually documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond referencing the returned draftId. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is doing the heavy lifting and the description does not conflict with it.

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 the specific action: 'Preview and freeze a forward without sending it,' with a clear verb and object. The phrase 'without sending it' and the callout to 'Confirm the returned draftId with imap_confirm_send' further disambiguate this from send-and-forget operations.

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 description gives clear context: use this to prepare and freeze a forward before actually sending, and then follow up with imap_confirm_send. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling preview tools for send or reply, but the 'forward' scope and the confirm flow provide enough directional guidance.

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