send_password_reset

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

Despite `destructiveHint: true` already signaling impact, the description adds crucial behavioral context: it contacts a real person, requires specific OAuth scopes and a destructive capability, and should only run on explicit user instruction. This goes beyond what annotations and schema convey.

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 front-loaded with the core action and consequence ('This contacts a real person'), then efficiently covers parameters, alternative guidance, and authorization. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 the output schema exists and annotations already mark the tool destructive/non-idempotent, the description covers everything needed: what it does, parameter semantics, the right domain lookup, the safer alternative, permission requirements, and user-consent constraint. 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that `id` is the obfuscated Skilljar learner id and that `domain` is required, has no default, affects link validity, and can be found via `list_domains`. This is actionable and prevents a common failure mode.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Email a learner a password reset link') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling `set_student_password`. An agent can clearly tell what this tool does and why it differs from the most similar alternative.

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 explicitly says to prefer this over `set_student_password`, gives the reason, tells the agent to use `list_domains` to find the correct domain, and restricts use to explicit user instruction. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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