prepare_forward

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining that the tool does not send and returns a preview for approval. This gives context beyond the annotations about the intended workflow and non-mutating nature.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a crucial qualification (does not send) plus an explicit next step. No wasted words.

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 that the tool has an output schema (preview) and the sibling tools include commit_action, the description covers the key aspects: it generates a preview, does not send, and leads to a commit. It omits details about parameter usage, but that could be inferred from schema and sibling context. Still, for a 5-parameter tool, a bit more context on when to use it (e.g., in a forward workflow) would improve completeness.

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 should have compensated by explaining parameter meanings. It doesn't address any of the 5 parameters (to, note, message_id, from_account, save_as_draft). While some names are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantics or usage hints for parameters, leaving agents to guess at domain-specific conventions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Prepare a forward of a message and return a preview for approval.' It uses a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('forward of a message'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like prepare_send and prepare_reply by explicitly mentioning 'forward'.

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 provides clear usage guidance: it notes that the tool does not send and instructs to use commit_action after user approval. This sets expectations for the preparation step. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like prepare_send or prepare_reply, though the tool name itself implies the forward-specific case.

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