reset_computer_password

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the password is random and 120 characters, returned exactly once in the response, flagged sensitive (do not log), that TLS is mandatory and the call is refused otherwise, and that the machine's secure channel breaks and must be rejoined or re-synced. These are exactly the side effects an agent must know before invoking.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first line, followed by constraints and consequences in short declarative sentences; nothing is padded. The example line is useful but slightly redundant given a single obvious parameter.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites (TLS), the return value and its sensitivity, the destructive side effect on the secure channel, and the error case. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and handle the result.

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 the single parameter is already documented as 'Computer name to reset password for'. The description adds only an example invocation, which is helpful but does not add semantic constraints (e.g. whether short name or FQDN or DN is accepted).

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 computer account password') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling reset_user_password by naming the object type (computer account) and the underlying attribute (unicodePwd). An agent can tell exactly which of the two reset tools to pick.

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?

Usage context is clear: it applies to computer accounts, requires an LDAPS/StartTLS connection, and errors if the computer is not found. It does not explicitly contrast with reset_user_password or say when *not* to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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