forward_email

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

With no annotations, the description fully takes on transparency. It explains header handling, subject prefixing, the effect of as_attachment (inlines or attaches original), and the save_to_sent option. This comprehensively discloses behavioral traits.

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 somewhat lengthy due to the parameter list but is well-structured with a clear intro, distinction from sibling, and bullet-style parameter explanations. It is appropriate for the parameter count.

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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential behavioral aspects and parameter usage. It could be more detailed on failure modes or permissions, but it is adequately complete for most use cases.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains all 10 parameters with meaningful details, especially as_attachment and body, adding value beyond the schema's title fields.

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 'Forward an email to new recipients' and distinguishes it from reply_email by explaining that it creates a new thread without In-Reply-To or References headers and adds a deduped 'Fwd:' subject prefix.

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 explicitly contrasts forward_email with reply_email, which helps the agent choose between them. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the differentiation is clear.

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