reset_provision_token

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

Discloses that the tool sets status to TOKEN_RESET_REQUESTED and outlines subsequent steps. However, it does not mention idempotency, multiple call effects, or error conditions, which would improve transparency. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. First sentence states the action, second provides critical follow-up. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and post-conditions. However, it omits what the tool returns or any confirmation of success, which would improve 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter provision_id is already documented as 'ID of the provision'. The description adds no further semantic detail, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Requests' and resource 'new credential API key' for a provision, clearly stating the context (lost, expired, or revoked token). It distinguishes from siblings like get_provision and create_user_session.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (token lost, expired, revoked) and provides a clear follow-up procedure: poll get_provision then call create_user_session. This gives comprehensive guidance.

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