security-set-user-password

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered; the description adds that oldPassword is validated before the change and that resetPassword bypasses the current-password requirement as an administrative action. It does not mention that an administrative reset typically requires elevated privileges or what happens on validation failure, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the mode-selection rule. No filler; the em-dash clause adds a genuine constraint rather than padding.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential branch logic and both parameter paths are fully documented in the schema. It omits permission requirements for the administrative reset and failure behavior, which are the main remaining details an agent would want.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'supply either oldPassword or resetPassword: true' restates what the schema already says in each parameter's own description, adding little beyond the mutual-exclusivity framing.

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 ('Sets a new password for a Sitecore user'), which is immediately distinguishable from sibling mutations like security-set-user, security-disable-user, and security-unlock-user. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with them, but the resource+action combination is unambiguous.

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 for the two invocation modes (validated old password vs. administrative reset) and asserts there is no third path, which helps an agent pick the right call shape. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over siblings such as security-set-user or security-new-user, so no exclusions are provided.

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