send_forgot_password

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'mutation' which implies a write, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it sends an email), required permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. The long list of unrelated-looking parameters (filter, order, etc.) adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 dump of variable names followed by a long, truncated example JSON. It is not concise or structured; much of the content is redundant with the schema and lacks a clear explanatory lead. It does not front-load the purpose and instead buries the reader in parameter listings.

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 mutation with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, return value, side effects, or why there are multiple filter/order/after parameters seemingly unrelated to 'forgot password.' The example is truncated and does not serve as functional guidance.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a list of variable names and an example JSON, which gives some structural hints (e.g., filter includes customers, ids, name, pods, roles, users). However, it does not explain the meaning of individual parameters in the context of send_forgot_password, and the schema descriptions are only GraphQL type names (e.g., 'GraphQL: AccessGroupFilter'). The example is also truncated.

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 merely states 'User · mutation sendForgotPassword,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and operation type, not a description of what the tool does. There is no clear verb indicating the action (e.g., 'send a password reset email') or explanation of the resource affected. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like generate_password_link or resend_invite.

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 such as generate_password_link or resend_invite. It only lists variables and an example, which does not convey appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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