gmail_forward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose important traits such as whether original attachments are forwarded automatically, permissions required, or effect on read status. Only the basic action is stated.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the purpose, the second provides a crucial usage hint. No redundant information.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain forwarding behavior for attachments, error handling, or the full process. The schema descriptions help but the description should offer more context to compensate for lack of 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the 'body' is prepended before the forwarded message and that 'subject' is usually 'Fwd: <original subject>', and that 'originalMessageId' comes from gmail_search or gmail_read.

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 states 'Forward an email to new recipients' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail_send and gmail_reply by implying this is for forwarding existing emails, and it includes a prerequisite to use gmail_read first.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use gmail_read first to get the original message content', providing clear guidance on the required preceding step. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives for replying vs forwarding.

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