create-forward-draft

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds that the tool creates a draft and does not send. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., side effects), so the description provides minimal value beyond annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured with parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and sibling draft tools. The description fails to explain required parameters (messageId and body) or how to use them, leaving significant gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, leaving context about required fields (messageId, body) and their meaning unaddressed.

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 clearly states the tool creates a forward draft and does not send, which distinguishes it from send tools like forward-mail-message. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other draft creation tools such as create-reply-draft or create-reply-all-draft, missing an opportunity for clarity.

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 tip 'Useful when user wants to review before sending' implies usage context when review is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., forward-mail-message for sending) or provide exclusions. Guidance is partial.

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