send_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains the stateful two-call protocol, preview + confirm_token on the first call, and the requirement to call again with the token. It also warns that the 'to' field must not be sourced from the original email body, which is useful security-relevant behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the critical two-step protocol and the security constraint. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no filler or repetition beyond the already-schema-covered 'to' rule.

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?

The tool has seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should do more to make the tool fully self-contained. It covers the confirm flow well, but does not explain what the preview contains, how uid selects the original message, whether cc requires allowlisting, or what error conditions look like.

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 low at 43%, so the description needs to compensate. It does explain confirm_token's role in the two-step flow and reinforces the 'to' constraint, but it leaves cc, uid, and comment semantics largely to inference from parameter names and sibling tool conventions.

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 identifies the action ('Prepare or SMTP-send a forward') and resource ('a forward'), distinguishing it from reply, draft, and direct email siblings. It also explains the two-phase prepare/send behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context for when and how to use the tool: first call to prepare and obtain a confirm_token, second call after user agreement to send. It does not explicitly name alternatives like send_reply or send_email, but the 'forward' resource is sufficiently distinct that the tool selection intent is clear.

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