Forward Email

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: forwarding is immediate and irreversible, addresses are validated/deduplicated with a 500 limit, confirm must be true. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with sections: emoji line, warning, validation info, Args list, Returns, Raises. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and warning.

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 tool has 6 parameters, output schema exists, and no enums, the description covers behavior, validation, parameter requirements, and error conditions comprehensively. Returns are summarized as 'Status confirmation', sufficient since output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing all parameters with explanations: account_id (Microsoft account ID), email_id, to/cc (recipients), body (optional plain text), confirm (must be True). Provides meaning beyond parameter names.

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 'Forward an email to recipients', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like email_send (send new email) and email_reply by specifying forwarding an existing email with an optional comment.

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 implies when to use (forwarding) and includes warnings and constraints, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like email_send or email_reply. However, the context from sibling tools makes it fairly clear.

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