imap_forward_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the original message and headers are quoted, attachments are optional, and account defaultBcc addresses are always BCC'd. It stops short of stating whether the message is sent immediately or queued, and discloses nothing about permissions or rate limits for this mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the source identifier, then usage routing, then a behavior caveat. No sentence is padding.

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?

With 9 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics an agent needs. The only meaningful omission is the result of the call (e.g., sent confirmation vs. queued/saved draft), which matters for a send-type mutation with no annotations.

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 every parameter including the to/bcc array-or-string forms and the accountId/accountName fallback is already documented. The description only restates the source identifier as 'folder + uid' and the optional-attachment and defaultBcc behavior, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (forward) and resource (existing email, identified by folder + uid) to new recipients. It also names the sibling it is not (imap_reply_to_email), so an agent can separate the two send-like tools without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants to pass an existing message on to someone else') and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('use imap_reply_to_email instead to respond to the sender'). Nothing is left to inference.

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