update_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. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait beyond the schema: the response is a JSON string and 'password value not included,' which tells the agent it will not receive the secret back. However, it does not state partial-update semantics (whether unprovided fields remain unchanged), behavior when password_id does not exist, or any permission/authentication requirements, which matter for a mutating tool.

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 a one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact name:meaning arg list and a single Returns line, with no filler. The length is justified by the schema having zero parameter descriptions, and the arg list format maps exactly to the input 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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: purpose, every parameter, and the return format. It is incomplete on update semantics (does it patch only provided fields?), error behavior, and explicit guidance among the many password-related sibling tools, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 fully compensates by documenting all 9 parameters with clear one-line meanings, including the 'New...' qualifiers that distinguish replacement values from the target identifier. The otp_secret entry adds valuable format details (Base32 encoded, min 16 chars), though the other lines mostly restate the parameter names with minimal additional constraint or format guidance.

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 opening sentence, 'Update an existing password entry in IT Glue,' uses a specific verb plus resource and explicitly scopes to existing entries, which cleanly separates it from create_password, delete_password, get_password, and search_passwords among the siblings. The operation and target are unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the verb 'update' plus 'existing password entry' suggests it is for modifying an entry rather than creating, retrieving, or deleting one. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of the direct alternative create_password, so the agent must infer selection from the name and opening sentence alone.

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