run_email_forward_now

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it processes unread emails (which could be a large volume operation) and describes what it returns (statistics). However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether this permanently forwards/marks emails as handled, whether it's idempotent, or whether running it multiple times has consequences. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a brief mechanism note, the automatic-frequency context, and a return summary. Every sentence earns its place. Zero waste, appropriately sized for a parameterless trigger action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is less critical, though the description still summarizes it. For a trigger-action tool with no parameters, the description covers the core behavioral context: what it does, when it normally runs, and what it returns. Slightly more detail on side effects or idempotency would push it higher, but it's adequate for a simple action tool.

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?

There are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there's nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return value instead, since there are no inputs to clarify. The baseline of 4 for a 0-param tool is appropriate, and the description adds value by describing what the action does.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Run email forward rules') and states what it does: processes unread emails and forwards matching rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_email_forward_rules (which reads rules) and test_email_forward_rules (which tests them) by indicating this actually executes the forwarding immediately. However, it could more explicitly contrast against test_email_forward_rules to fully distinguish execution from testing.

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 indicates this is for running rules immediately rather than waiting for the automatic 5-minute cycle, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like test_email_forward_rules for validation scenarios. The 'normally runs automatically every 5 minutes' note implies an on-demand override use case but doesn't fully explore the guidance.

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