sch_forward_mail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical draft-vs-dispatch behavior via send_now, attachment preservation, and the account default resolution from credentials.json. It doesn't mention permissions or rate limits, but covers the key state-changing behavior.

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?

A front-loaded purpose sentence followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every line adds parameter value rather than padding. Slightly verbose but earns its length given 8 undocumented params.

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?

Despite output schema existing, the description still notes what is returned (status, subject, attachment count, message id). Given 8 params at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers all the info an agent needs to call this mutation correctly.

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 must fully compensate and it does: each of the 8 params is explained with meaning, format (comma-separated), default (INBOX, Drafts), and the account key example. This is exactly the compensation the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Forward an existing message to new recipient(s)') plus a distinguishing behavioral trait ('preserving attachments'). This clearly separates it from siblings like sch_send_mail or sch_move_mail.

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 by tying msg_id to sch_list_mail/sch_search_mail as sources and explaining the send_now draft-vs-send behavior. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over sch_send_mail, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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