PostActor_typeAuth_providerUpdate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a password reset (a mutation) and requires a bearer token in the Authorization header, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., if the user is logged in automatically). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise—two sentences that directly explain the tool's function and authentication method. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and the link to external docs, while helpful, doesn't clutter the main text. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter (undocumented), and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and auth method but misses critical details: parameter meaning, response format, error cases, and side effects. For a password reset operation, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 has 1 parameter ('auth_provider') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about this parameter. The description mentions a 'reset-password token' but doesn't clarify if this is the 'auth_provider' parameter or something else. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is poor.

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: 'Reset a customer's password using a reset-password token.' It specifies the verb ('reset'), resource ('customer's password'), and mechanism ('reset-password token'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'PostActor_typeAuth_providerResetPassword' (which likely generates the token), leaving some ambiguity about their relationship.

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 referencing the token generation API, suggesting this tool should be used after obtaining a token. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other auth tools like 'PostActor_typeAuth_provider' or 'PostSession'), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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