vk_post_user_bc424c7a6615

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is required, explains parameter aliasing, and notes the payload is passed via body. However, it does not describe the response format or potential side effects like invalidating sessions, which would be useful for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded. It explains the purpose, endpoint, payload usage, aliasing, and auth in four tight sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, so the description is nearly complete. It covers the proxy nature, authentication, aliases, and payload handling. The only missing piece is explicit details on the expected body fields or error responses, but given the simplicity, the description is strong.

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?

The schema has one required 'body' parameter with description 'The current and new password.' The description adds that the body should contain the JSON request payload but does not specify the exact structure (e.g., keys for current/new password). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Change password' and specifically identifies the endpoint POST /user/password, distinguishing it from sibling tools. It clearly states the tool lets the current user change their password, providing a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 description clearly states when to use the tool (for the current user to change their password) and how to pass the payload (in the optional body field). However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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