cdp_validate_password_reset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a validation check, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'valid' entails (e.g., expiration time). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user security data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Validate a password reset code') and adds clarifying detail. There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks depth in behavioral context and parameter guidance. For a security-related tool with two required parameters, more detail on validation outcomes and usage context would enhance completeness.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description mentions 'reset code' and 'given user', hinting at the parameters, but does not add meaningful semantics such as format examples (e.g., username format, reset code structure) or constraints beyond what the bare schema titles imply. It partially compensates but falls short given the low coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('password reset code'), and it explains the action ('checks whether the reset code is still valid for the given user'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_generate_password_reset', which might be related, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'cdp_generate_password_reset' or 'cdp_update_password', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a pre-generated reset code. It only describes what the tool does without contextual usage instructions.

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