reset_shared_doc_password

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

The description mentions 'Selfhost backend only' which is a useful operational constraint, and that null removes password protection. However, there are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't clarify whether the password change is destructive/reversible, whether it affects other users' access, or what happens to the password on selfhost vs cloud versions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap but the 'Selfhost backend only' note adds some context.

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 extremely brief - two clauses that convey the purpose and the null behavior plus the backend constraint. Every element earns its place. However, it's borderline under-specified, so it leans more toward conciseness than substantive content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage on parameters, the description does not compensate. It fails to explain the return value, side effects on shared access, or the 'updated_user' parameter's role. It also doesn't clarify whether resetting to null makes the doc accessible to everyone or just removes the password entirely. The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity and the absence of any structured enrichment.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it barely does. The description touches on new_password via the 'null removes protection' note, and implies doc_id_or_url is a resource identifier, but does not explain updated_user at all. It doesn't clarify whether doc_id_or_url accepts a URL or just an ID format, and 'null removes protection' is the only real semantic contribution 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?

The description has a specific verb+resource ('Reset...password') and clarifies the null-removes-protection behavior. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_shared_doc or revoke_shared_doc. The core action is clear but the scope vs sibling operations is ambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as revoke_shared_doc or update_shared_doc. The 'Selfhost backend only' constraint is a limited usage note, but there's no when-to-use, prerequisites (e.g., existing password required?), or exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned.

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