create_user_by_user_id_settings_password

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds that the operation updates a password and that the body schema must be discovered from the matching GET or /schema endpoint. It does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or response behavior, but annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and a short argument list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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?

Given the opaque body parameter and zero schema coverage, the description provides a viable discovery path by telling the agent to read the matching GET or /schema first. It is adequate for a simple password update but lacks explicit guidance on when-to-use, permissions, and the create/update naming inconsistency.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that user_id is a path parameter and that body is a request payload, and it directs the agent to discover expected body fields via GET or /schema. However, it does not describe the actual body fields, leaving a required nested object unspecified.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Update password for a user.' The endpoint line reinforces the target. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling settings tools like get_user_by_user_id_settings_password, but the update-vs-get verb makes the distinction inferable. The tool name's 'create_' prefix conflicts slightly with the description's 'update' wording, but the description itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when updating a user's password. The description provides a useful prerequisite—'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first'—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or auth requirements.

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