mail_change_password

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — it doesn't mention permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects. A 3 is appropriate given the annotations carry the safety burden but the description adds little.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then lists parameters concisely. Every sentence earns its place, though the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema property names.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. Given the annotations cover safety and the description documents all parameters, it is reasonably complete for a simple mutation tool. It could still mention when to use it versus mail_change_settings.

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 compensate. It documents all three parameters (domain, mailbox, password) with clarifying detail — for example, explaining that mailbox is the part before '@' and giving a domain example. This meaningfully fills the gap left by the bare schema, though it could be more precise about password requirements.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Сменить пароль почтового ящика' — change mailbox password), which is clear and distinct from siblings like mail_change_settings or mysql_change_password. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, so it falls short of 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, nor how it differs from mail_change_settings, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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