crypto_mysql_password_generator

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it runs locally, contacts no database or external service, is rate-limited (30 req/min), and explains deterministic vs non-deterministic behavior (SHA1-based formats are deterministic, mysql80 uses random salt). This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Description is a single well-structured paragraph, front-loading the main purpose and use cases. It covers key points without excessive verbosity. Could be slightly more concise but overall effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, enum, simple behavior), the description covers purpose, parameters, usage, behavior, rate limits, and output (returns hash, version, algorithm, format, salt, iterations). No output schema provided but description adequately hints at return structure.

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 covers both parameters (password and version) with descriptions and examples. The description adds context about version-specific formats (e.g., mysql80 uses caching_sha2_password with random salt) and behavior differences, providing useful nuance beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool generates MySQL password hashes for a given plaintext across versions. It specifies the exact use case (building CREATE USER/SET PASSWORD statements or test fixtures) and distinguishes from sibling tools like crypto_postgresql_password_generator and crypto_password_generator.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (for MySQL password hash generation) and when not to use (for PostgreSQL, use crypto_postgresql_password_generator; for random plaintext, use crypto_password_generator). Also notes it runs locally, is read-only, non-destructive, and rate-limited.

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