Change a user's password

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write semantics are covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the ha:config permission requirement and the owner-account precondition, both of which affect whether a call succeeds. It does not mention whether existing sessions/tokens are invalidated by the reset.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its main precondition. The clause 'which is how it always authenticates' is slightly redundant and weakens the owner-account constraint, but overall the text earns its space.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the key prerequisites (existing local login, owner-account auth, ha:config permission). The main gap is the post-call effect on the user's existing sessions or credentials, which an agent might want to know before invoking it.

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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters carry their own descriptions (including the instance_id refusal behavior), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the constraint that user_id must reference a user with an existing local login, not new syntax or format detail. Baseline 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 and resource ('Reset the password for a user') and explicitly scopes it to users that already have a local login, naming ha_set_user_credentials as the sibling that creates such logins. An agent can distinguish this from ha_create_user, ha_update_user, and ha_set_user_credentials without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear preconditions: the user must already have a local login, and the broker must be acting as the owner account. It also states the required permission (ha:config). It stops short of explicitly saying 'use ha_set_user_credentials first if the user has no local login', so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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