reset_user_password

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is a security-sensitive mutation that changes a user's credentials, yet the description does not disclose required permissions, whether existing sessions are invalidated, whether the operation is reversible, or how a generated password is returned to the caller. It does add useful behavior around complexity requirements and forced next-logon change.

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 front-loaded with the core action and is largely waste-free. The example block is useful but slightly verbose relative to the short explanatory text; overall structure is clear and easy to scan.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main action and password generation. The major gap is that it does not explain how the generated password is communicated back to the caller, nor does it mention authorization requirements or side effects, which an agent needs before invoking a credential reset.

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%, so parameter meanings are already documented by the schema. The description reinforces the auto-generation-as-default behavior and provides examples that map arguments to common scenarios, but adds little beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 a user password, including the optional auto-generation behavior and forced change. It is clearly distinct from non-user reset tools such as reset_computer_password, though it does not explicitly reference sibling alternatives.

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 is implied through examples showing either auto-generated or specified password flows, which clarifies common invocation patterns. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus modify_user or why one would choose an explicit password over auto-generation, nor does it mention prerequisites such as required administrative permissions.

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