Forward Mail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the permission requirement ('Requires delegated Mail.Send') which is useful, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as immediate sending, impact on the original message, or error/response behavior. Minimal but not misleading.

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 two concise sentences plus a multilingual intent list. It front-loads the core purpose, states a key requirement, and adds useful Chinese intent mappings without redundant information.

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?

For a simple forward action with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, permission requirement, and multilingual variants. It could mention whether the message is sent immediately or if the original remains unchanged, but overall it is sufficient for an agent 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; it only generically references 'recipients'. No additional semantic value.

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 action ('Forward') and the target ('an existing message') and specifies 'one or more recipients', making it distinct from sibling tools like mail_send and mail_reply. It is specific and 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (forwarding an existing message) but does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives like mail_reply or mail_send. The inclusion of the permission requirement adds usage context.

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