alias_generate_password

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It merely says 'Generate a password' without mentioning override behavior, auto-generation versus provided passwords, or whether instructions will be emailed. For a state-changing tool, this is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with no redundant content. It front-loads the key action and target, making it easy to scan.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the generated password) or the effects of is_override and emailed_instructions. The absence of behavioral context makes it incomplete for understanding the full tool workflow.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to explain them individually. The description adds context about the password's intended use (IMAP/SMTP/CalDAV/CardDAV) but no additional parameter-level meaning, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 action (generate a password) and the target resource (an alias), adding the protocol context (IMAP/SMTP/CalDAV/CardDAV). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic alias tools, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like alias_update or catchall password creation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as alias_update or domain_catchall_password_create. The description implies it's for alias passwords but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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