reset_mailbox_password

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that open IMAP sessions are unaffected, that new credentials apply at next login, and that the new password is shown only once and cannot be recovered later. These are exactly the non-obvious side effects an agent must know.

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, each carrying distinct information: what is reset, when the new password takes effect, and its non-recoverability. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational risks: existing session continuity, timing of new credential use, and one-time visibility. It doesn't explicitly describe the response shape beyond 'shown once', and it doesn't state prerequisites such as the mailbox existing, but the overall picture is strong.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds that the password is shown once and not recoverable, which usefully contextualizes the optional password parameter, but it doesn't add new per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the operation: resetting a mailbox's IMAP/SMTP-AUTH password. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like create_mailbox or get_identity, so an agent knows exactly what resource is affected.

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 this is for existing mailboxes that need new credentials, but it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over create_mailbox or any other alternative. The 'new password is needed on next login' hint provides some operational context, but no explicit exclusionary guidance.

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