Reenviar un correo

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

Discloses that the message is sent immediately and that previous recipients are not carried unless repeated in 'to', adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. Could further mention outcome details like sent item creation, but the current coverage is strong.

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, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and a clarifying distinction in the second. No extraneous content, every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main behavior and key differentiator. It might optionally note prerequisites or side effects like sent copy, but the current description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds the nuance that recipients are 'nuevos' (new) and reinforces the optionality of the comment, providing a small but meaningful semantic increment over 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Reenvía' (forwards) and clearly identifies the resource as an existing email by ItemId, with optional comment. It also distinguishes from replying by stating the original thread does not carry previous recipients unless repeated, making it unambiguous among siblings.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with 'responder' (reply) and explains the difference in thread behavior, providing clear guidance on when to forward vs reply. This directly addresses the most similar sibling tool, ews_reply_message.

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