Forward Email

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

Discloses that the original message is included as quoted content and that standard headers are preserved, adding value beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent or requires authentication.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior and optional message prepending. Minor gap: does not mention the result of the forward action (e.g., a new email being sent).

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description reiterates the 'message' parameter's purpose but adds no new semantic meaning 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?

Clearly states the action ('Forward an email') and the resource, distinguishing it from similar sibling tools like send_email or reply_to_email. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from these alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reply_to_email, send_email). The description lacks context for appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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