set_mysql_user_password

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only conveys that this is a mutation of an existing credential. It says nothing about required privileges (root or admin-level access), whether the change is reversible, whether active sessions are invalidated, whether MySQL password policy applies, or what happens on failure. For a security-sensitive credential mutation with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the scope constraint ("existing") placed before the resource. It is efficiently written, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

The tool is a privileged mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should tell the agent about permissions, side effects, and the expected result. It covers only the basic purpose, leaving an agent unable to judge whether it can safely call this or what a successful response looks like.

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%: both `user` ("Full MySQL username") and `password` ("New password") are documented in the schema, so the description has little left to add. It does confirm the password parameter is the replacement value rather than a current password, but adds no format, host-suffix, or strength details beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ("Change the password") and a precisely scoped resource ("an existing MySQL database user"), which clearly separates it from sibling credential tools such as change_email_password and change_ftp_password. It stops short of a 5 because it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts its scope with the adjacent MySQL user tools (create_mysql_user, delete_mysql_user).

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 phrase "existing... user" implicitly signals the precondition that the user must already exist, so an agent can infer it is not for creating users. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative tools that create or delete MySQL users, and no note about required privileges or when the old password is needed.

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