forward_email

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

Without annotations, the description does some work by explaining that the body is placed above the forwarded content. However, it omits important details like whether the email is sent immediately, marked as read, or if drafts are created.

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 very concise, using a single introductory sentence followed by a clear bullet list for parameters. No 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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks behavioral context such as side effects or authentication requirements, making it only partially complete.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the schema by specifying that item_id is an Exchange ItemId, to is a comma-separated list, and body is an optional message placed above the forwarded content. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'forward' and resource 'email', distinguishing it from siblings like reply_email and send_email. However, it does not elaborate on the exact forwarding mechanism (e.g., inline vs attachment).

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 reply_email or send_email. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for forwarding.

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