db_change_user_password

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation ('Change'), but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on active database sessions. The 'confirm: Required.' line hints at a confirmation behavior but is ambiguous and conflicts with the schema's optional confirm parameter.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, which is good. However, the Args list is extremely sparse and the 'confirm: Required.' line is ambiguous and potentially misleading, so not every part earns its place. It is concise but under-specified.

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 annotations and no usable schema descriptions, this is incomplete. The agent cannot reliably know what confirm does, whether it must be set to true, which database user context applies, or what side effects to expect. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and prerequisite detail.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It gives minimal meanings: 'dbuser: Name', 'password: New password', and 'confirm: Required.' The password meaning is clear, but dbuser is vague and confirm is not explained as a boolean flag or as the confirmation mechanism. Worse, 'confirm: Required' contradicts the input schema where confirm is not in required and has a default of false.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Change a database user password.' This clearly identifies the operation and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like users_change_password because it targets a database user rather than an account user. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or state the scope boundary.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as users_change_password, db_create_user, or db_user_get. It only implies use for changing a database user password, without prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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