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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it discloses the concrete consequence (previous credentials stop working, must be updated in the FTP client) and the server-side generation of the new password. The one real gap is that it never says how the newly generated password is delivered back to the caller, which matters for a reset tool with no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the primary action and consequence, and every clause carries distinct information (scope, consequence, exclusion, alternative). It is dense rather than padded, though the single long sentence plus inline URL makes it slightly heavier than needed.

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 reset tool it covers the affected resource, the irreversibility of the old credentials, and the excluded case with an escape hatch. The omission of how the new password is returned to the caller is the only notable hole given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real eligibility meaning to the 'login' parameter: it must be an additionally created FTP account and cannot be the subscription's main login. That constrains which values are valid in a way the schema does not.

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 ('Setzt das Passwort eines ... FTP-Zugangs ... zurück') with an explicit scope qualifier ('ZUSÄTZLICH angelegten'), which cleanly separates it from reset_email_password and reset_wordpress_admin_password among the siblings. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it (the main subscription account, identified via get_ftp_accounts, whose password is also the SSH password) and routes the agent to the correct alternative (Plesk, with a knowledgebase URL). This is a genuine when/when-not/alternative triad.

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