create_auth_reset_password_by_guid

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds the HTTP method/endpoint and the instruction to inspect the resource schema, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or response behavior beyond what annotations and the output schema cover.

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 and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, the endpoint, then a minimal Args list. There is no filler, and the guidance about reading the schema 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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is largely complete. The main missing piece is clarification of how this tool relates to create_auth_reset_password, but the body-discovery instruction covers the opaque payload adequately.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by labeling guid as a path parameter and body as a request payload, and by directing the caller to the matching GET or /schema endpoint for the expected fields. It does not enumerate the body fields, but it provides a concrete discovery mechanism for an otherwise opaque additionalProperties object.

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 opening sentence 'Reset the password for a user' uses a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint path clarifies the target. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling create_auth_reset_password, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives actionable context: the guid is a path parameter and the body fields should be discovered by reading the matching GET or /schema endpoint. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over create_auth_reset_password or when not to use it, leaving selection between siblings to inference.

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