fw

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description reinforces this with 'Envia de verdade' (it really sends) and adds the important non-annotation detail that a confirmation step is required, though it stops short of describing irreversibility or rate/auth constraints.

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, both carrying information: one defines the operation and its optional modifier, the other flags real-world sending and the confirmation requirement. Zero padding and the key risk warning is placed last for emphasis.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, that it truly sends, and that confirmation is involved; the confirmation-code mechanics are covered by the 'cf' schema description. It could still say more about what a first (unconfirmed) call returns and any recipient limits.

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 four parameters are already fully documented, including the 'cf' confirmation code and the 'alvo' id formats. The description only adds that 'nota' is optional, which is marginal value beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — forwarding an email to other recipients with an optional note — which usefully decodes the cryptic name 'fw'. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like 'snd' (send) or 'rp' (reply), which an agent could easily confuse with forwarding.

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?

'Envia de verdade; pede confirmação' implies a real send behind a confirmation step, which is contextual usage guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose 'fw' over 'snd' or 'rp', and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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