reset_user_password

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important failure mode (returns interactive_login_required, password is never sent), which prevents wasted calls. However, it says nothing about the success path, required permissions, or what a successful reset returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the blocking constraint. Slight redundancy between 'returns interactive_login_required' and 'without sending the password', but no filler.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must stand alone; it adequately answers 'will this work for me?' but leaves the tool's actual purpose and success behavior unstated, which is a real gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 user_id and new_password are already documented with types and constraints. The description adds only the negative fact that new_password is not transmitted, not any new parameter meaning.

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 never states the core action (resetting a user's password); it only says the tool is 'Unsupported with API-key authentication' and returns 'interactive_login_required'. The verb+resource is inferable only from the name and schema. No sibling differentiation against login/auto_login/update_user.

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?

It gives a clear blocking condition (API-key auth in Langflow 1.13) and a concrete alternative ('Sign in to Langflow interactively'). It stops short of naming sibling tools like login or auto_login that might accomplish the same thing.

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