gmail_create_forward_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that source attachments are not preserved, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other important behaviors such as whether original messages are modified, permission requirements, or the format of the created draft.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the core action stated immediately. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value (e.g., whether it returns a draft ID), behavior when multiple message IDs are provided, or error conditions. A more complete description would cover these aspects for a tool with 6 parameters and no structured behavioral hints.

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 67%, and the description adds no additional context beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. While the schema already explains parameters like 'to', 'message_ids', and 'note', the tool description does not elaborate on their usage or constraints, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 the tool creates draft forwards for source messages, using specific verb 'create' and resource 'draft forwards'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gmail_create_draft (which likely creates a new draft from scratch) by specifying 'forwards' and noting attachment behavior.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_create_draft or other forwarding methods. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing message IDs from search tools) or scenarios where it should be avoided (e.g., when preserving attachments is required).

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