forward-shared-mailbox-mail

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

Annotations establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds the key behavioral requirement that 'confirm=true' is mandatory, reinforcing the safety gate. It does not disclose more about side effects, such as sending emails to recipients or confirmation flow details, but it is not misleading and does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: one action sentence and one mandatory confirmation requirement. It is front-loaded and contains no filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose and critical safety gate.

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 a straightforward write operation with a complete schema and clear annotations. The description conveys the essential action and confirmation requirement, but it omits any guidance on when to choose this over the normal forward-mail sibling and does not mention expected outcomes or return behavior. It is minimally viable but not rich in context.

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 all five parameters already have descriptive text. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Forward a shared-mailbox message.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like forward-mail and reply-shared-mailbox-mail by the shared-mailbox scope. The 'Requires confirm=true' addition reinforces that this is an executable write action.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forward-mail or reply-shared-mailbox-mail. The shared-mailbox wording implies the target domain, but no exclusions, conditions, or alternative routing are provided.

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