create_forward_draft

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: the original message is quoted, attachments are preserved unless configured otherwise, no immediate send occurs, and a draftId is returned for later update or send. This goes well beyond the annotation while remaining accurate.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The primary action and key behavior are front-loaded, and the alternative and return value are each covered in one sentence, giving maximum signal per word.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, when to use it, the key alternative, and what it returns (draftId). It could mention the required recipient parameter or sync behavior, but those are already visible in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds some context—'quoted body' clarifies how body relates to the original message, and 'preserving its attachments' gives meaning to includeAttachments—but it does not substantially enrich the parameter docs overall.

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 specific verb ('Create a forward draft'), a clear resource ('an existing email'), and core behaviors (pre-filling the original as quoted body, preserving attachments). It distinguishes this tool from forward_email by highlighting the staging-for-review purpose, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 says when to use it: when you have an emailId and want to stage a forward before sending. It also names the alternative — 'Prefer forward_email to send immediately without saving' — giving a clear when-not-to-use condition.

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