remove_forward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Remove', which implies deletion, but it does not state whether the action is irreversible, whether it affects any other settings, whether it is idempotent, or what happens to the mailbox itself. For a destructive operation this is a meaningful gap.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It is concise and understandable on first read. However, the phrase 'from a mailbox' is slightly ambiguous in context because the identifying parameters are domain and localPart rather than a mailbox ID, so the structure could carry a bit more precision without becoming verbose.

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 is simple with only three fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the bar for completeness is moderate. Yet as a removal operation with no annotations, the description should at least note irreversibility or clarify the scope of removal. It currently reads as minimal and leaves the agent without enough behavioral context to safely invoke the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the special note that 'id' is a forward id from list_forwards. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable under the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('a forwarding address from a mailbox'), which directly conveys the operation. It naturally distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_forward and list_forwards, since 'remove' marks the inverse of 'add' and distinct from listing.

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?

No usage context is provided beyond the action itself. The description does not state when to prefer remove_forward over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining the forward id from list_forwards (though that appears in the schema). The intended when-to-use is only implicit from the tool name and sibling set.

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