update_password

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and largely drops it: it does not say whether the change requires the existing password, whether it invalidates existing sessions/tokens, whether it is reversible, or what authorization is required. The PUT verb is the only behavioral signal, and it merely restates the endpoint.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and compact, but it is followed by roughly twenty comma-separated keywords ('update_password, update password, replace password, ... mealie') that add no semantic value and comprise the majority of the text.

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 credential-mutating endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested request body, an agent needs to know whose password is affected and what preconditions apply. The description leaves both unanswered, so it is not sufficient to call the tool safely.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameter at all — it never names newPassword, currentPassword, the minLength 8 constraint, or the fact that currentPassword defaults to empty. 'Replace (full update)' offers only the faintest hint about the body shape, far short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 and resource (update/replace the User password, PUT /api/users/password) and clarifies it is a full replacement, not a partial patch. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like update_user or update_user_image, and the trailing 20-token keyword dump dilutes the signal rather than sharpening it.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus update_user, nor any precondition guidance (only logged-in users can change their own password, whether a current password must be supplied first). The only implied usage is the endpoint path itself.

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