users_change_password

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

With no annotations, the description carries more responsibility, and it does disclose an auth requirement (admin) and a special behavior for empty/current usernames. However, it does not explain consequences such as session invalidation, and the 'confirm: Required' note conflicts with the schema's default false, making the behavioral picture partially unreliable.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a compact Args list. The one-word confirm description is slightly misleading, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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 sensitive admin mutation with three parameters and no annotations, this is adequate but incomplete: it covers admin restriction, target username, and new password, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Missing pieces include confirm's actual expected value or role, password policy constraints, and potential side effects of changing another user's password.

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 Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. Username gets useful guidance about target account and empty/current-user behavior, and new_password is identified, but confirm is described only as 'Required,' which contradicts the schema where confirm is optional with a false default and its actual role is not explained.

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 action — 'Change another account's password' — and adds the admin scope, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The username parameter and 'account' wording distinguish it from database-user password tools like db_change_user_password in the sibling list.

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 an explicit routing condition: an empty/current username should use /api/change-password instead, and the operation is labeled as admin-only. It does not name sibling MCP tools as alternatives, but the main ambiguous case is handled clearly.

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