forward_email

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

Discloses that it is immediate and preserves attachments. The annotations only provide destructiveHint: true, so the description adds value by explaining behavior like prepending a note. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the send is irreversible or what happens on failure, but the confirmation parameter description compensates somewhat.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

With 14 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: purpose, usage, prerequisite (PROTONMAIL_ALLOW_SEND), and key behavior. It doesn't cover error handling or return values, but for a send tool this is acceptable given the schema covers parameters fully.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'emailId' and 'optional note' without adding significant extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'forward', the resource 'existing email', and key actions 'preserving original attachments' and 'prepending an optional note'. Distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'create_forward_draft'.

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 'Use when you have an emailId and want to re-route the message without review' and recommends 'Prefer create_forward_draft to stage a forward for review first', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative.

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