forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect ('Sends immediately unless draft=true'), that original attachments are carried, and that additional local file attachments can be added. This is meaningful behavioral transparency, though it stops short of mentioning irreversibility or the exact return/response behavior.

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 only three sentences, each earning its place: core action, optional body note, and send-vs-draft plus extra attachments. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and contains no redundant or filler language.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential decision-critical behavior: immediate send versus draft, preservation of original attachments, and the ability to add local files. The remaining details (mailbox semantics, return value) are adequately handled by the schema or are minor for this operation.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description. The description's references to 'intro note via body' and 'further local file attachments' merely restate what the schema already says, so it adds no new meaning beyond the structured definitions. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Forward a message to new recipients, carrying its original attachments.' This clearly differentiates forward from reply/reply_all (new recipients) and from send_message (carries the original message's attachments). The action and scope are 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 description implies the use case — forwarding an existing message to new recipients — but it never explicitly contrasts this with siblings like reply_all, create_draft, or send_message, nor does it state when not to use it. 'Sends immediately unless draft=true' gives operational context, not usage guidance among alternatives.

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