mess_complete_password_reset

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('JSON status 204 on success'), which is not covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations, as 'complete password reset' aligns with the non-read-only hint.

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 purpose, followed by structured sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (authentication-related mutation), the description provides complete parameter details, return information, and context. With annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema implied by the return statement, no critical gaps remain for effective tool invocation.

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 carries the full burden. It effectively lists and explains all three parameters (email, otp, password) with examples and context, such as '6-digit string e.g. '123456'' for OTP and 'new password' for password, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Complete password reset') and identifies the required resources (OTP + new password). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'mess_generate_reset_password_otp' by focusing on the final step of the reset process rather than initiation.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'OTP received by email,' suggesting this tool should be used after generating an OTP. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions, such as not using it for initial password creation or without a valid OTP.

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