mail_forward_email

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions preserving content and optional introductory text, but omits details about attachment handling, cc/bcc, whether the original is quoted, or any other side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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, with a two-sentence overview followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action and readable. Minor improvement: integrating parameter descriptions into prose could enhance flow.

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 absence of annotations, presence of output schema (unexplained), and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return value, error conditions, recipient limits, or handling of attachments. The bare minimum is met but significant gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'to: List of recipient email addresses', 'identity_id: Sender identity ID; auto-selects first if omitted'). While functional, it adds minimal value beyond parameter names; for example, 'email_id' lacks context like which mailbox.

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 the resource 'email', and explains that it preserves original content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_send_email (compose new) and mail_reply_to_email (reply).

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., mail_reply_to_email, mail_send_email) or mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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