email_forward_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the forwarding behavior (source to destination), which adds value beyond the name, but doesn't mention permissions, idempotency, activation timing, or potential side effects. This is a minimal but adequate disclosure for a simple mutation.

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 with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, followed by the behavioral explanation. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core intent and function. However, it lacks details about error cases, validation, or prerequisites (e.g., domain verification), which could affect correct usage. Adequate but not complete.

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% and the schema already fully describes both parameters. The description restates the source/destination roles but adds no new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add an email forwarding rule') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like email_forward_remove/update/list by focusing on the 'add' operation, and from url_forward_add by specifying 'email' forwarding.

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?

Usage context is implied: it's for adding a forwarding rule, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., email_forward_update for modifying existing rules). The description doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites.

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