qui_change_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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the HTTP method (PUT) and argument structure, but omits side effects such as session invalidation, authentication requirements, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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 two sentences, each dedicated to a specific aspect: the endpoint and the argument structure. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no irrelevant information.

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 description covers how to invoke the endpoint (argument structure) but fails to state the tool's purpose explicitly or disclose any behavioral consequences. The endpoint name 'change-password' hints at functionality, and an output schema exists, but the description is minimal for a password-changing operation. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer intent and effects from the tool name.

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?

The input schema is extremely generic (a free-form object with 0% coverage), so the description's guidance on how to distribute path variables, query values, and body across the arguments object adds meaningful structure. Without this, the agent would have no clue how to construct the request, making this a strong compensatory description.

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 identifies the tool as calling the PUT /auth/change-password endpoint, which signals the purpose of changing a password. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing a unique endpoint, though it phrases the action as 'call endpoint' rather than explicitly stating 'change password'.

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 provides explicit instructions on how to structure arguments: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON body in arguments.body. This gives clear usage context for invoking the tool. It doesn't mention alternatives, but no sibling tools serve the same password-change purpose, so this is acceptable.

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