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 behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no mention of required permissions, whether the old password must match the caller's own credentials, whether the change is irreversible, or whether it invalidates active sessions or API tokens. For a credential-mutation tool this is a critical 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?

The one-line description is short but under-specified rather than concise; it spends its only sentence repeating the title and leaves no room for the safety-relevant context this operation needs. Brevity here is a deficiency, not an efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a security-sensitive admin credential change with zero annotations the description should at least state auth requirements and password constraints. None of that is present, leaving the definition materially incomplete.

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 old_password, new_password, and confirm are already documented in the schema (including the note that confirm must be True). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 Chinese restatement of the title 'Change Admin Password' and adds no distinguishing information. It names a verb and resource only in the tautological sense of repeating the tool name, and gives no hint of scope, target account, or how it differs from siblings like list_admin_accounts or 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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_admin_account or get_password_self_service, nor any prerequisite about which admin identity must be authenticated. The agent receives no routing guidance at all.

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