reset_billing_password

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral transparency by stating that a reset link will be sent to the email, implying no immediate password change, and that the email must match the account. This goes beyond the annotation hints and gives the agent a clear expectation of side effects.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding the key condition. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. This is an model of brevity.

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 two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral effect (sending a reset link), the precondition (email match), and the tool's purpose. It does not detail error cases or response format, but such details are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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%, with both parameters documented in the JSON schema. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying that the email must equal the account email, which is not stated in the schema. This helps the agent pass the correct value. It does not need to explain the confirm parameter further because the schema already states it must be true to execute.

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 a specific verb and resource ('reset password of billing account') and includes the underlying whmcs/reset_password reference. It also explains the delivery mechanism (link sent to email) and a key condition (email must match the account), making it unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, none of which offer password reset.

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 gives clear context: it is for resetting a billing password via a link sent to email. It provides an explicit prerequisite (email must match the account email), which is key usage guidance. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but no sibling tool provides the same function, so this level of guidance is sufficient.

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