Update Forwarder Keep-Copy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states 'Update whether forwarder keeps a copy' without clarifying that the boolean parameter sets the value, whether the forwarder must already exist, what side effects occur (e.g., affecting future forwarded emails), or whether the change is reversible. As a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single sentence of seven words, immediately front-loading the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise for the simplicity of the operation.

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 is simple (2 params, boolean update) and the description covers the core behavior, but it lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., forwarder must exist), relationship to other forwarder settings, or what the response indicates. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves some gaps but is minimally adequate for a trivial setter operation.

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%: both parameters have descriptions ('Keep copy in original mailbox' and 'Forwarder ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the purpose, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema fully documents the parameters.

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 ('Update') and resource ('forwarder keeps a copy'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mail_forwarders_list, mail_forwarders_create, and mail_forwarders_delete. It exactly matches the tool's name and title, leaving no ambiguity about the action performed.

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 implies usage context (update keep-copy setting for a forwarder) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it, such as needing to create the forwarder first. The context is inferable from the name but not explicitly stated.

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