user_passwd_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no statement that the operation invalidates existing sessions or credentials, and no note that a non-GET call requires explicit confirmation. The 'confirm' semantics live only in the schema, not the description.

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?

It is short and front-loads the endpoint, but the 'Тег: Пользователи' and 'Спека: user' lines are scaffolding that consumes space without adding selection or invocation value, leaving only one substantive sentence.

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 mutating, credential-affecting endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it omits who may call it, what confirm=true does, and what happens on success. The schema fills some gaps, but the description itself is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 100% (password, confirm, and user_id all carry descriptions), so parameter meaning is fully handled by the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or the encrypted-password requirement, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 Russian line 'Сменить пароль пользователя' states a specific verb and resource (change the user's password), so the purpose is legible. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as user_passwd_reset_post or admin_user_passwd_post, and the raw 'POST /user/passwd' plus 'Тег/Спека' lines add conformance metadata rather than meaning.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether this is the correct tool versus user_passwd_reset_post or the admin variant.

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