create_auth_reset_password

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the fact that it sends an email, which is implicit in the name. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like whether the email contains a link, whether it overwrites existing reset tokens, or any rate limits. It is consistent with annotations but adds minimal extra context.

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 compact, starting with a one-sentence purpose, then the HTTP method and path, then a brief argument note. It is efficiently structured and free of filler. It could omit the 'Args:' label for even tighter prose, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so the main missing piece is the payload structure, which the description points to. However, it does not clarify when to use this versus create_auth_reset_password_by_guid, nor does it mention whether any prerequisite (e.g., an existing user account) is needed. For a simple action, the gaps are moderate.

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 has a single 'body' parameter with additionalProperties true and zero description coverage. The description compensates by instructing the agent to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.' This is a useful pointer, though it does not directly describe any fields. Given the opaque schema, this guidance provides meaningful direction.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Send a reset password email.' This is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling create_auth_reset_password_by_guid, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_auth_reset_password_by_guid. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are provided. The description simply states the action without contextual routing.

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