panelica_accounts_post_v1_accounts_id_change_password

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the state-changing character is known. The description adds useful confirmation ('Mutating: changes server state') and states the required scope, but does not disclose possible side effects (e.g., invalidating existing sessions/tokens) or response behavior. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and scannable, with each line carrying distinct information: operation summary, HTTP method/path, category, required scope, and mutation flag. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 password-change endpoint with no output schema and an open/deferred body schema, the description does not specify the required body fields (e.g., new password) or any expected response. The agent could not reliably construct a correct request from the provided definition alone, making this incomplete for a state-changing tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema documents 'id' as the path parameter and 'body' as the JSON request body, but the description adds no extra meaning; notably the body schema is not statically declared and no password field semantics are described, so the agent must rely on external docs.

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 identifies the operation via 'HTTP: POST /v1/accounts/:id/change-password' and 'Category: Accounts', which conveys that this tool changes an account password and distinguishes it from sibling change-password endpoints (email, FTP, MySQL). However, the first line 'Create change password' is awkward and does not state in plain terms that it changes the account's password, so it is not a full 5.

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 endpoint path and 'Required scopes: accounts:write' imply that the tool should be used to change the password of a Panelica account when write access is available. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling email/FTP/MySQL password-change tools or give exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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