forward_email

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that original headers are preserved, which is meaningful forwarding behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention that the tool sends an email, what side effects occur, whether confirmation is returned, or any permission or error considerations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, the resource, the recipient scope, and the key behavioral trait ('original headers') efficiently.

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 invocable because the purpose and all parameters are clear. However, as a side-effecting operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on expected results, sent-item behavior, and caution around actually delivering email to recipients. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3. All four parameters are already clearly documented in the schema, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning. There is no semantic gap, but the description also provides no extra guidance beyond the schema.

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 (forward) and resource (existing email), and adds 'with original headers' to distinguish it from sending or replying. This separates it clearly from sibling tools like send_email and reply_email without needing to inspect any schema.

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 implies when to use it: whenever an existing email should be forwarded to new recipients. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as reply_email or send_email, so the usage guidance is largely implicit.

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