services_change_password

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to establish the safety profile. However, the description adds nothing beyond the annotations: it does not say whether existing sessions are invalidated, whether password policy constraints apply, or what happens on failure, all of which matter for a destructive credential change.

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 short and front-loaded with the operation name, which is good. The trailing 'POST /services/{id}/change-password' restates the route without adding meaning an agent can act on, so one sentence is essentially wasted but the total remains compact.

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 destructive, non-idempotent credential-changing mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits permissions, side effects on active sessions, and validation rules that an agent needs before performing an irreversible change.

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% for the top level, and the required 'id' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain that the body wraps a new password value, that the password must be 8-32 characters, or how the id is obtained, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Change service password'), which is enough for an agent to know exactly what operation this performs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from accounts_change_password, but the resource word 'service' versus 'account' makes the target object reasonably clear.

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 accounts_change_password or other service-mutation tools, and no prerequisites are stated. The only usage information is the HTTP route, which does not help an agent decide when to invoke it.

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