create_forward_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses important behavior: the returned draft has no To recipients, includes quoted body and 'FW:' subject. It also notes the required next steps. It stops short of discussing permissions or failure modes, but for a simple creation tool this is solid transparency.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second states return characteristics and workflow. No wasted words, information is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the subsequent steps. It is complete and self-contained within the email/draft context.

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 coverage is 100% (messageId description: 'Message ID from get_emails or search_emails'). The description's mention of 'forward of a message' adds little beyond the schema. Since schema already explains the parameter, the 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Create a draft forward of a message.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and adds key details (quoted body, 'FW:' subject, no To recipients) that distinguish it from sibling draft-creation tools like create_reply_draft.

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 a clear workflow: 'Use update_draft to set recipients, then send_draft to send.' This indicates when to use follow-up tools, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this tool vs. create_reply_draft or create_draft. Since the name and wording make the forward intent clear, this is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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