user_passwd_reset_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: whether authentication is needed, whether the request actually mutates state or merely sends a reset token/email, or that in rw mode the call returns a preview without confirm:true. For a state-changing password flow the disclosure is inadequate.

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 text is short and front-loads the HTTP method and path, which is good. But the trailing 'Тег: Пользователи / Спека: user' is generator metadata that adds no selection value, and the entire entry is under-specified rather than tight.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must fully explain the tool, yet it omits the reset flow's next step, the security/auth context, and the effect of the call. It is too thin for a mutation endpoint in an authentication flow.

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 the schema already documents confirm and user_id ('admin acts on behalf of this user'), which is the baseline-3 case. The description adds no clarification of the body payload, which is notably odd for a reset (bonus/credit/balance/dogovor fields look unrelated to a password reset).

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource via the HTTP endpoint and the Russian gloss 'Запрос на сброс пароля пользователя' (request to reset a user's password), so the purpose is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from closely-related siblings such as user_passwd_post, user_passwd_reset_verify_get, or user_passwd_reset_verify_post, leaving the agent to infer which stage of the reset flow this covers.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the verify endpoints, no mention that it is the first step of a reset flow, and no prerequisites. The only agent-facing instruction ('confirm:true') comes from the schema, not the description.

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