set_vm_user_password

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the guest agent requirement, which is a key prerequisite. However, it omits other traits like whether the VM must be running, what happens if the user doesn't exist, or whether this replaces the old password.

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 a single sentence, efficiently packed with the core operation and a key requirement. No filler words; it earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic function and a major prerequisite. However, it lacks details on preconditions like VM running state, error scenarios, or whether credentials are provided to the guest agent, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described (node, vmid, username, password). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or relationships between parameters, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the action: 'Set password for an existing VM user', specifying the verb (set), resource (password), and target (existing VM user). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'create_vm_user' tool by emphasizing 'existing'.

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 context is clear: it is for existing users, and it requires a guest agent, which is a critical condition for use. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of create_vm_user' or list alternative tools, but the 'existing' phrasing provides implicit differentiation.

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