create-forward-draft

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

The description adds valuable context by stating 'does not send' and framing the action as a review step, which clarifies the tool's non-destructive nature beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not contradict any 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word 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?

Given the complex nested schema for body and messageId, the description provides a basic overview but does not explain how the forward draft is constructed or how messageId relates to the original message. It is minimally sufficient but relies on schema details.

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 80%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the high-level purpose.

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 'Create a forward draft' with a specific verb and resource. The tip reinforces that it does not send, distinguishing this tool from forward-mail-message and send-mail siblings. This is unambiguous.

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' provides a clear context for use. It implies when not to use (when the user expects immediate sending), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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