vk_post_user_c1580ed27784

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the HTTP method, endpoint, authentication requirement, and alias behaviors. However, it does not mention response behavior, token consumption, or possible errors beyond the reset action.

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 has some redundancy, like 'Resets a password' followed by 'Resets a user email with a previously reset token,' and includes generic proxy boilerplate. It is front-loaded but not as tight as it could be.

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 one-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, auth requirements, and payload placement. However, it omits expected response behavior and contains the optional-body inconsistency, leaving it slightly incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description calls the body field 'optional' while the schema marks it as required. This contradiction could mislead an agent. The alias note adds value, but the optionality error undermines parameter clarity.

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 tool's action ('Resets a password') and identifies the exact Vikunja endpoint (POST /user/password/reset). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that target other resources or user operations.

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 specifies the context: resetting a password using a previously reset token, and notes that authentication is not required. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough.

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