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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and excellently discloses behavioral details: the password is applied live without reboot, effective in 10-30s, the old password stops working, and the new password is not in the response but must be read once via get_vps_status. It also reveals the confirm requirement and the emailing of the password, giving a complete picture of side effects and post-conditions.

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 dense but well-organized, leading with the core purpose and then layering behavioral, parameter, and usage information. While it is somewhat long, each sentence conveys essential operational details (e.g., immediate application, no reboot, required confirm format, human confirmation, alternative approach for fresh orders, password retrieval method). The structure is logical and front-loaded, with only minor redundancy in the urgency of human confirmation.

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?

The description covers the full operational context: when to use, prerequisites (confirm exact hostname), side effects, post-call steps to retrieve the password, and alternative tools for similar situations. It even handles the edge case of a fresh VM boot delay. With no output schema and no annotations, this description alone provides enough information for an agent to correctly execute and handle the tool's outcomes.

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 description adds substantial meaning to the confirm parameter by specifying it must be the exact hostname from get_vps_status or 'DELETE'. However, service_id is not explicitly described, though its role as the VM identifier is implied by the context. Given the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates well for confirm and partially for service_id, resulting in a strong but not perfect score.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Rotate the root password.' It clearly states the function and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the live VM context and the guest-agent mechanism, setting it apart from related tools like set_hostname or reinstall_vps.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this ONLY if the password was lost') and when not to use it (not for SSH not being instant on a fresh order), offering a specific alternative: poll get_vps_status with reveal:true. It also mandates human confirmation before calling, providing clear procedural guidance.

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