wetrack_change_password

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and lists parameters, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., invalidating sessions), authentication requirements, failure modes, or what happens on success. The only behavioral hint is that confirm_password must match new_password, which is a validation constraint but not a behavioral trait. This is insufficient 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 extremely concise, with a single sentence stating the tool's purpose followed by a clean list of arguments. It front-loads the main action and avoids any filler. Every line earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 simple password-change tool, the description covers the core action and all required parameters. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) reduces the need to describe return values. It does not mention side effects or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the output schema, it is reasonably complete. It could be improved by noting that the user must be authenticated (though 'logged-in user' implies it) and by specifying any session invalidation behavior.

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 zero description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It provides a one-line description for each parameter: 'current_password: The user's current password', 'new_password: The new password to set', and 'confirm_password: Must match new_password exactly'. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names and even specifies a validation rule for confirm_password. While not exhaustive (e.g., no complexity requirements), it adequately conveys the purpose of each parameter.

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 uses a clear verb ('Change') and specifies the resource ('logged-in user's password'). It distinguishes itself from related siblings like wetrack_set_password (likely for admin-set passwords) and wetrack_forgot_password (for reset via email) by explicitly targeting the authenticated user's own password. The statement is unambiguous and allows an agent to select this tool over its siblings.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wetrack_set_password or wetrack_forgot_password. It states the action ('change the logged-in user's password') but does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The context is implicit rather than stated, so an agent must infer when this is appropriate.

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