mess_generate_reset_password_otp

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses rate limiting ('Rate limited to once per minute'), response behavior ('Returns 204 even if email is invalid'), and success condition ('JSON status 204 on success'). Annotations provide basic hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false, etc.), but the description enriches this with practical implementation details.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, constraints, Args, Returns) in just four sentences. Every sentence adds value: scope restriction, rate limiting, response behavior, parameter explanation, and return format. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with output schema (implied by 'Returns: JSON status 204'), the description provides complete context: purpose, constraints, parameter explanation, and behavioral details. The combination of annotations, schema, and description gives the agent everything needed to correctly invoke this tool.

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 compensates by clearly explaining the single parameter ('email address') in the Args section. However, it doesn't elaborate on format requirements beyond what's implied by 'MSIT/intern accounts' - the schema adds 'Registered MSIT/intern email address' which provides slightly more specificity.

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 specific action ('Send a password reset OTP') and target resource ('to the given email'), with explicit scope restriction ('Only for MSIT/intern accounts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'mess_complete_password_reset' by focusing on OTP generation rather than password reset completion.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Only for MSIT/intern accounts'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It doesn't compare with sibling tools like 'mess_login_msit' or 'mess_reset_qr_token' that might handle authentication differently.

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