Forward Email

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

Annotations already indicate it is not readOnly, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds value by detailing that original headers are preserved and forwarded content is quoted, and optionally a message can be prepended. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary action and key behaviors. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 high schema coverage, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the forward action behavior including quoting and optional message. No obvious gaps for this type of tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions the optional message prepending which aligns with the 'message' parameter.

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 forwards an email to a new recipient, with specific details about original message inclusion and header preservation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reply_to_email or send_email.

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 use for forwarding but does not explicitly mention when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives like reply_to_email, send_email, or move_to_trash. No exclusions or alternative tool references.

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