forward

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the 'optional comment' detail, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether attachments are included, how the original sender is presented, or side effects beyond the write.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and key nouns. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits usage context (e.g., differences from reply), return values, or prerequisite conditions. It is adequate for a simple forwarding operation but lacks completeness for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. 'Forward a message to recipients' maps to message_id and 'to', while 'optional comment' maps to comment. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not elaborate on array format or parameter constraints.

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 action ('Forward a message'), the resource ('a message'), and the recipients ('to recipients'), with an optional comment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_mail and reply, as forwarding implies sending an existing message to new recipients.

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 usage when one wants to forward an existing message rather than creating a new one, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reply or send_mail. No exclusions or alternative pointers are provided.

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