imap_forward_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that forwarding quotes the original message and headers and optionally includes attachments. It does not cover side effects, authentication needs, or error handling, but the core behavioral details are adequately communicated.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 8 parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the primary functionality and usage distinction. It could mention what happens to the original email or return value expectations, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds general context about the action but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. No parameter-specific semantics are added.

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 tool forwards an existing email to new recipients, quoting the original message and headers. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling imap_reply_to_email by stating its use case.

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 says 'Use when the user wants to pass an existing message on to someone else; use imap_reply_to_email instead to respond to the sender.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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