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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds critical context beyond that: the old password becomes immediately invalid, the new password is shown only once in plaintext and cannot be retrieved later, and the login name is validated against the actual admin list. These are exactly the behavioural details an agent needs for safe handling.

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 a single, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and flows logically through the optional login case, the default case, the security behaviour, and the site_url condition. It is efficient, though the length is on the higher side for a 3-parameter tool.

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 a mutation tool with destructiveHint, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does, the important side effects (password invalidation, one-time visibility), prerequisites (valid login, site_url when needed), and references the sibling for listing admins. Nothing essential 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 already 100%, with all three parameters documented in the schema. The description reinforces the meaning of login and site_url but adds little syntactic or format information beyond what the schema provides. The base score of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb (reset) and resource (password of a WordPress admin account). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like reset_email_password and reset_ftp_password by naming the WordPress admin context and references the dedicated sibling list_wordpress_admins.

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 explains when to use the login parameter versus omitting it (default admin account), and adds the condition for site_url (multiple installations on the same domain). It also points to list_wordpress_admins as the source of valid usernames, covering the 'when' and 'what to combine with' aspects comprehensively.

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