reset-user-password

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary action (generating a reset link) but omits side effects such as whether the link is returned to the caller, whether an email is sent when sendEmail=true, token expiry, or any authentication requirements. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of nine words. It conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise 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?

For a tool that generates a reset link, the description lacks crucial contextual details: the return value is not described, no output schema exists, and there is no mention of what happens when sendEmail is false or when neither email nor userId is provided. The one-sentence description is not sufficient for the agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, especially given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, including the optionality relationship between email and userId. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('password reset link for a WordPress user'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create-user' or 'update-user'. It also clarifies that the tool generates a link rather than directly resetting the password, which is a key functional distinction.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer email vs userId, or any exclusions. The only usage context is implicit from the name and description, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and similar user-management tools.

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