email_forward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state what happens to the original email (does forwarding preserve attachments? does it mark as forwarded?), whether the recipient list replaces or adds to existing, what the 'confirmed' parameter gates, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste. However, given its brevity it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — there's room to add valuable context without bloat.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address the 'confirmed' and 'idempotencyKey' fields which have non-obvious semantics, doesn't clarify how the body interacts with the original email, and gives no post-condition information. A forward operation has meaningful subtleties (idempotency, confirmation) that are entirely undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate entirely. The description only names the high-level action (forwarding to recipients) but provides no meaning for parameters like 'confirmed', 'idempotencyKey', or 'body' beyond their bare schema types. The 'to' array and body shape are defined structurally but their semantic role in a forward flow (editing body vs original) is unexplained.

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 'Forward an email to new recipients' clearly states the verb (forward), resource (email), and purpose (new recipients). It sufficiently distinguishes from siblings like email_send and email_reply, though it doesn't explicitly name the differentiators.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like email_send or email_reply, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether the email must exist, whether confirmation is needed). No when-not guidance provided.

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