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

Goes well beyond the annotations: old password is mandatory, the new password must be supplied twice identically, only the caller's own account is affected, and existing tokens stay valid so no re-login is needed. These are non-obvious behavioral consequences an agent could not derive from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the usage rule, then adds constraints and side effects in a logical order. The trailing '| EN: password, credentials, account' keyword block is slightly SEO-like filler, but the body is otherwise 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 mutation tool with no output schema and no required-parameter markers, the description covers inputs, scope, and post-change token behavior adequately. It stops short of mentioning error conditions (e.g., wrong old password), which is the only meaningful gap.

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 adds real meaning: it clarifies that the old password is required and that the new password must match the confirmation field exactly. This reinforces the semantics of old_password and password_confirm beyond their terse schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Passwort des EIGENEN Kontos aendern') with explicit scope limited to the caller's own account. It distinguishes itself from the sibling onto_user_update by noting that even administrators cannot set foreign passwords. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Nutze es, wenn der Mensch das Passwort wechseln will') and names the alternative (onto_user_update) for account administration. It also states an exclusion — foreign passwords are out of scope — leaving nothing to inference.

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