mail_create_forward_draft

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description aligns with a mutation operation. However, no additional behavioral details are disclosed (e.g., whether it copies attachments, how it handles recipients). The description adds minimal value beyond the 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 short (7 words) and to the point, but it is too brief to be effective. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is highly incomplete. An agent would lack critical information about parameters, return values, and when to use this tool, making it nearly impossible to invoke correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (cc, to, messageId, accountName, mailboxPath, additionalContent). The agent must infer parameter meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 the verb 'create' and the resource 'forward draft of an existing message'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mail_create_draft' (blank draft) and 'mail_create_reply_draft' (reply draft), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'mail_create_draft' or 'mail_create_reply_draft'. The description does not mention prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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