change_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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the operation's name. It does not state that this is a destructive/irreversible mutation, what privilege level is required to change another user's password, or whether the host parameter scopes which account is affected.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy, which is efficient. The terseness is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness failure, so it scores well here.

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 four-parameter, unannotated, output-schema-less mutation tool, this description is too thin. It omits privilege requirements, irreversibility, and the relationship between host/username and connectionName that an agent needs to call it safely and correctly.

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 all four parameters (host, username, newPassword, connectionName) are already documented in the schema, making a baseline of 3 appropriate. The description adds no extra meaning — it does not, for example, explain the '%' default on host or why connectionName is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Altera a senha de um usuário' — changes a user's password), which is unambiguous and easily distinguished from siblings like create_user, drop_user, or grant_privileges. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling (check_password_policy), so it falls short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_password_policy (to validate policy compliance first) or create_user (for initial credentials). No preconditions, no mention of required privileges, no exclusions — the agent must infer all of this.

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