Draft Gmail Forward

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds only 'HTML formatting preservation', but omits details like that it creates a draft in user's Gmail drafts folder, requires specific permissions, or that it does not send the message. No mention of idempotency or side effects beyond what schema covers.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, no filler. Efficient but could include brief context without harming conciseness (e.g., 'Creates a draft (not sent) forward...'). Still well above average.

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 8 parameters and output schema, description is too minimal. Lacks high-level context like the draft appearing in Gmail, that it does not send, or when to use different content_type values. Schema and output schema cover details, but description should frame the operation.

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. Description adds marginal value by hinting at content_type importance via 'HTML formatting preservation', but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Create a draft forward') and the resource ('a Gmail message'), with a specific feature ('HTML formatting preservation'). Distinguishes from siblings like 'forward_gmail_message' (which sends) and 'draft_gmail_reply' (which replies) by focusing on forward draft creation.

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 over alternatives (e.g., 'forward_gmail_message' for sending, 'draft_gmail_reply' for replies). Agent must infer from name alone; no explicit context about prerequisites or when drafting is preferred.

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