placetel_reset_user_passwordResets the password for a Placetel user account by user ID, triggering a password reset through the API.
Reset password for account. (POST /users/{id}/password_reset)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter id. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path. For a password reset it omits crucial context: whether a new password is generated and returned, emailed, or whether existing sessions/tokens are invalidated.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the endpoint in parentheses. Nothing extraneous, though the parenthetical adds little value for an agent.
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?
This is a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, and the description never explains what the call returns (new password? confirmation?) or the side effects on the user's credentials. Annotations cover the safety profile but the semantic gaps remain significant.
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 id and response_format parameters are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional semantics (e.g. format of id), so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Reset password for account') and includes the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly which operation is performed and can distinguish it from the sibling reset_user_two_factor_authentication. It doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling, keeping it just below a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_user or the two-factor reset sibling, no prerequisites (e.g. admin privileges), and no note about when a reset is appropriate. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.