Request password reset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the side effect (sending an email) and the external dependency (SMTP). It does not detail error behavior or account existence handling, but the core behavior and prerequisite are transparent.

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?

A single sentence communicates the action, target, and precondition without any wasted words. The essential behavior is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 action tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough information for an agent to invoke it: what it does and a key prerequisite. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but those are less critical for a fire-and-forget email request; the guidance is sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents both the 'email' and 'collection' parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for fully documented schemas.

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 names the specific action ('Send a password reset email') and target ('to a user'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It is distinguishable from siblings like confirm_password_reset and request_verification because it explicitly mentions the email-sending step.

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 conveys the usage context: a user needs a password reset email. It also includes a clear prerequisite ('requires SMTP configured'). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the use case is unambiguous and there are no misleading signals.

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