change_admin_password

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose that this is a security-sensitive mutation, that the old password is required for verification, or that confirm must be set to true. Zero behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 extremely short, but this is a case of under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence does not earn its place because it simply restates the tool name in another language and omits critical context. Structure is absent.

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?

Given that this is a security-sensitive account management operation with no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists and parameters are documented, the description fails to provide any context about the operation's impact, prerequisites, or confirmation requirements. The agent cannot understand the tool's purpose or behavior beyond the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% since each parameter (old_password, new_password, confirm) has a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters. The confirm parameter's 'must be set to True' is present in the schema, not the 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 '修改管理员密码' is a direct translation of the tool name 'change_admin_password' and provides no additional information. It restates the name, making it a tautology rather than a distinct purpose statement. It does not distinguish the tool from sibling tools like add_admin_account.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name.

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