auth_reset_password

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the token is single-use and expires after 1 hour, and all existing sessions are revoked on success. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a security-sensitive mutation, covering failure modes (expired/used token) and side effects (session revocation). It doesn't state the success/error response format, but it covers the most critical behavioral implications.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, token constraints (single-use + expiry), and side effect (session revocation). Zero verbose filler or redundancy. Exceptionally efficient.

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 2-param auth mutation with 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, token lifecycle, and operational side effects. Security-critical details (session revocation, token expiry) are disclosed. There's no output schema to explain return values, and it doesn't specify what error responses look like, but for a password reset the essential behavioral contract is well covered.

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 schema documents both parameters (token and password) with descriptions. The description adds the connection between token and auth_forgot_password, which enriches the token parameter's meaning, but this is marginal value. The password minLength constraint is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting and description adds only modest context.

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 verb+resource: 'Reset a user password using the token received via email from auth_forgot_password.' It specifies the exact flow (token from email), distinguishes from siblings like auth_forgot_password (which initiates) and auth_login, and provides clear scope of what the operation accomplishes.

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 implies when to use: after receiving the token via auth_forgot_password email. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the context (token received via email from a specific tool) provides clear usage framing. It could add exclusions, but the flow is reasonably well-established.

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