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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false): it warns that the old password is invalidated, that active mail clients must be reconfigured, and that a nonexistent mailbox causes rejection while the existing password remains valid — explicitly framed as not a malfunction. This is exactly the operational detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose, destructive consequence, failure behavior, and the pre-check alternative. The core action and its risk are front-loaded, with no filler.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the consequence of success, the failure mode, and the recommended precaution. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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%, and both parameters (domain, local_part) already carry detailed descriptions with allowed-character rules and examples. The description adds no additional parameter syntax, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('setzt ... zurück') and resource ('Passwort eines bestehenden E-Mail-Postfachs'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling reset_ftp_password and reset_wordpress_admin_password. An agent can identify the target entity and action without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: existence is not pre-checked, and it explicitly routes to get_email_accounts when the mailbox name is uncertain ('statt den Namen zu raten'). It does not spell out when a different reset tool would be the right choice, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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