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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds the concrete consequences: the old password immediately stops working, the new value is displayed only once and cannot be retrieved later, and the caller must be a workspace owner. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking an irreversible 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?

A single semicolon-joined sentence that front-loads the action and its consequence, then tacks on the display constraint and the authorization requirement. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the return behavior ('shown only once') and the destructive effect, plus the permission gate. Minor gaps remain: it does not say whether the new password is returned in the response body versus shown in a UI, or whether existing connections using the old credential break.

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 50%, and the description contributes nothing about either parameter. That is tolerable here because the two parameters (email, project_id) are self-describing and the schema carries format and pattern constraints, but the description does not clarify whether project_id refers to the connector project or the parent workspace project.

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 (generate/reset), the exact resource (a connector project's email/password account), and the effect on the prior credential. It is clearly distinct from siblings like add_connector_account and remove_connector_account without needing to name them.

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 gives a hard prerequisite ('Workspace owners only'), which is genuine usage guidance, and implies the trigger (password needs rotating). However it does not route the agent between this and alternatives such as add_connector_account or remove_connector_account when an account is misconfigured rather than compromised.

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