forward-message

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden of transparency. It warns that with send=true the message is sent immediately and cannot be unsent, requiring explicit user confirmation. It also describes the draft-saving behavior. No contradicting annotations exist.

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 concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: it starts with a usage directive, then lists parameters, then exclusions, then safety notes. Every sentence is essential and additive. No redundant or missing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, output schema exists) and the rich context from sibling tools, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, usage boundaries, behavioral implications, and safety. The output schema handles return value documentation, so no further detail is needed.

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?

The description adds context beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'id' is the message being forwarded, 'to' is an array of new recipients, 'body' is optional prepended text, and 'send' controls immediate send vs. draft. However, it does not detail the format constraints for 'id' (regex) or 'to' (email validation), which the schema provides.

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 (forward) and resource (existing message), and distinguishes it from siblings like reply-to-message and send-email/compose. It uses specific verbs and lists key parameters (id, to, body, send).

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?

Explicitly says when to use (forwarding an existing message) and when not to use (replying or composing new), with references to alternative tools (reply-to-message, send-email, create-draft). Also provides guidance on using send=false to save as draft.

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