Сброс пароля root сервера

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the new password is sent to the account owner's email, providing useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like potential delays or effects on existing sessions, so it only partially adds value.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the outcome. No unnecessary words, perfectly concise.

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 the core action and the method of receiving the new password. However, it does not explain the response format, potential side effects, or any prerequisites, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 100%, and the schema already documents server_id as mandatory and its purpose. The description does not add any further information about the parameter, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 function: initiating a reset of the server's root password. It uses a specific verb ('reset') and resource ('root password'), and the title reinforces this. It is distinct from all sibling tools, as no other password reset tool exists.

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 implies usage (when you need to reset a server's root password) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It provides clear context of the action but lacks direct usage guidance.

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