Set Email Password

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate the write profile. It adds genuinely new context instead: the full password policy (12-72 chars, upper/lower/number/special) and the consent/delivery obligation, which tell the agent how to behave, not just what the tool does. It does not describe failure modes (e.g., policy rejection) or any auth requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then the constraint, then the handling rule. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers target validity, password policy, and the post-call obligation to relay the new password. Remaining gaps (validation failure behavior, whether the old password is required) are minor given the annotations already flag the destructive/idempotent profile.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the policy sentence specifies the complexity classes and the 72-character upper bound that the schema only hints at with minLength 12, and it clarifies that email_address must be an active mailbox from `list_mailboxes`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change the password of an email hosting mailbox') and scopes it to active mailboxes sourced from `list_mailboxes`. An agent can distinguish this from setup_mailbox/create_mailbox/renew_mailbox without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use constraint: only change a password the user explicitly asked to change, and it points to `list_mailboxes` as the way to identify a valid target. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or a when-not scenario beyond the consent rule.

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