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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by explaining that the new password is server-generated, that prior credentials cease to work afterwards, and that stored credentials in FTP clients must be updated. It does not say whether the new password is returned to the caller or whether any permission is required, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the core action, then the consequence, then the exclusion and the reference link. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing URL and its surrounding clause make it longer than strictly necessary.

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 covers scope, side effects and the excluded case well. The one meaningful gap is whether the newly generated password is returned in the response, which an agent needs to know to report it back to the user.

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 both parameters (login, domain) are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only a mild semantic constraint — that the login must belong to an additionally-created FTP account — but supplies no format or syntax guidance beyond the schema.

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 (zurücksetzen) plus resource (FTP-Passwort) and narrows the scope to 'ZUSÄTZLICH angelegte FTP-Zugänge einer Domain', which separates it from create_ftp_account/delete_ftp_account and from the sibling reset_email_password / reset_wordpress_admin_password. An agent can identify the target resource and the excluded resource without opening any 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 an explicit exclusion ('NICHT möglich ... für den Hauptzugang des Abonnements') and routes the agent to the correct alternative channel (the Plesk knowledge-base URL) for that case. It also ties the exclusion to a detectable criterion — 'den get_ftp_accounts als Hauptzugang ausweist' — so the agent knows how to check before calling.

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