artex_change_password

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully hints that the change is non-persistent and that secrets must be updated separately, but omits whether authentication/privilege is required, whether existing sessions are invalidated, whether the change is reversible, and what happens on failure — all critical for a credential mutation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the trailing clause about persistent secrets earns its place. The first sentence is slightly cryptic in its env-var reference, which keeps it from a 5.

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 credential-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented confirm parameter, the description does too little — it leaves the source of the new password and the effect of confirmation ambiguous. It is adequate only in the narrow sense of naming the operation.

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 0% for the single `confirm` boolean, and the description never mentions it. A confirm flag defaulting to false on a destructive credential change is exactly the parameter that needs explanation (does false mean no-op or a dry run?), and the description provides none.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Change the ARTEX password"), which is distinguishable from artex_login/artex_logout/artex_configure_basic_auth at a glance. However, it never clarifies what ARTEX_NEW_ADMIN_PASSWORD actually is (an environment variable? a config key?) or how that relates to the sole input parameter, so the mechanism stays murky.

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 clause "Update persistent secrets separately" acts as an implied exclusion — this tool only touches the live password, not stored secrets — which is genuine usage guidance. There is still no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus artex_configure_basic_auth or artex_initialize, and no prerequisites.

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