cipp_set_email_forwarding

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that forwarding is silent, reversible, and a common data-exfiltration vector. This provides valuable behavioral context, earning a 4.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with a warning, and each sentence adds value (risk, reversibility, user confirmation). No wasted words, so it scores 5.

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 high-impact mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: action, risk, reversibility, and user instruction. It lacks return value details but is otherwise complete, scoring 4.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so it remains at 3.

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 it configures email forwarding on a mailbox, using a specific verb and resource. While the purpose is unambiguous, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like cipp_set_out_of_office, so it scores 4.

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 warns about high impact and data exfiltration, and instructs to confirm with the user before invoking. It provides clear context for cautious use but does not specify when not to use or suggest alternatives, so it scores 4.

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