outlook_forward_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only restates the name/title; it does not disclose whether the forward is a draft or sent immediately, what happens to attachments, whether it requires authentication, or whether comments can be added. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the action. However, it is arguably too terse given the complexity implied by the operation.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty parameter schema, the description does not come close to covering what an agent needs to call this tool correctly. Critical details about inputs, side effects, and return behavior are missing.

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 shows zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 4, but the empty schema is suspicious for a forward operation that realistically needs at least an email ID and recipient. The description says 'another recipient' but provides no mechanism to specify either the source email or the recipient, leaving semantics incomplete.

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 states a clear verb ('Forwards') and resource ('an Outlook email') plus the target ('to another recipient'). It is distinguishable from siblings like outlook_reply_email and outlook_send_email, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 such as outlook_reply_email, outlook_reply_all, or outlook_send_email, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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