forward_email

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the action is immediate and without review, and states a permission requirement. It doesn't detail the confirmation prompt for irreversible sends, but that is already partially covered by the destructive hint.

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 sentences with no waste: function, usage trigger, and alternative/prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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 tool with 15 parameters, full schema documentation, and a destructive annotation, the description provides adequate context: what it does, when to use, what to prefer, and a key permission. It doesn't detail return values, but no output schema exists and the schema covers parameters thoroughly.

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 parameters are well documented there. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'preserving original attachments' and 'optional note', but these are already reflected in schema parameters like includeAttachments and body/markdownBody. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'forward', the resource 'existing email', and key behaviors (preserving attachments, prepending optional note). It explicitly mentions the alternative create_forward_draft, distinguishing it from 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 states when to use ('when you have an emailId and want to re-route the message without review') and when to prefer an alternative ('Prefer create_forward_draft to stage a forward for review first'). Also mentions a prerequisite (PROTONMAIL_ALLOW_SEND).

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