reset_billing_password

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: an email link will be sent and the email must match the account email. It does not mention prerequisites, rate limits, or what happens after the link is sent, but the additional context is sufficient for a simple reset operation.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action and the key constraint are stated immediately, making the description easy to parse and act on.

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 two-parameter action with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers the essential operational detail: what happens (link sent) and the key precondition (email must match). No output schema exists, but explaining return values is not necessary for this kind of operation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a meaningful clarification that the email must match the account email, which strengthens the 'email' semantics beyond the schema's brief 'Email аккаунта'. The 'confirm' parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full 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 states a specific verb and resource ('reset billing account password') and explains the mechanism: a reset link is sent to the specified email. It is unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for resetting a billing account password and sets an important condition: the email must match the account email. It gives clear context, though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives.

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