forward_email

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

The description does not add meaningful behavioral transparency beyond the annotations. It fails to disclose that forwarding sends a copy of the email, that a note can be included, or what happens to the original (e.g., it remains). The annotations indicate a non-idempotent, non-read-only operation, but the description is too sparse to fully inform the agent.

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, using a single sentence that clearly states the action and key objects. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Forward' and immediately specifies the resource and destination.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description lacks completeness for a mutation tool. It does not describe the effect on the email (original remains), the side effect of sending, or the output structure. The agent is left to guess the full impact.

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 schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning. The term 'by UID' mirrors the uid descriptor, and 'new recipient' mirrors the to descriptor. No new insight.

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 action (forward), the target resource (email by UID), and the destination (new recipient), making it unmistakable. It distinguishes from siblings like reply_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 provides no guidance on when to forward versus using reply_email, send_email, or other sibling tools. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context without criteria.

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