wetrack_forgot_password

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the immediate observable effect (sending a password reset email) but does not disclose authentication requirements, behavior for unknown emails, duplicate-email risks, rate limits, or security considerations. It is not contradictory, but the transparency is thin for a side-effectful 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 is two short sentences plus an Args block, with the main action front-loaded. Every clause adds information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the core invocation details are mostly present. However, because there are no annotations and no explicit sibling routing, the description omits auth/error/rate-limit context and leaves the boundary with password-management tools implicit.

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 input schema only provides 'email' as a required string with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by defining it as 'the email address of the user who forgot their password,' which supplies the missing semantic meaning. It does not add format/validation rules, but for a single string parameter this is sufficient.

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 specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('password reset email') with an explicit target ('for a user'). The 'forgot their password' qualifier distinguishes it from the change_password and set_password siblings, even though they are not named.

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 intended scenario is implied by 'the user who forgot their password,' but the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like wetrack_change_password or wetrack_set_password. The agent must infer the boundary between resetting via email and changing/setting a password directly.

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