Изменить пароль

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

Annotations already mark it destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds critical context: passwords never enter MCP arguments or responses, and existing browser sessions are terminated. This exceeds what the annotations alone convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then security handling, then the session-termination side effect. No wasted words; every sentence adds useful information.

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, security-sensitive tool with a rich schema and annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, security constraints, and a key side effect (session termination). It does not describe error behavior or return format, but those gaps are minor given the schema and annotation coverage.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why the file exists (human-created outside MCP) and that passwords never appear in arguments or response, reinforcing secure parameter handling.

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 specific verb and resource ('Меняет пароль') and specifies the exact mechanism (local JSON file created outside MCP). This distinguishes it from siblings like account_update or account_security, which handle different account aspects.

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?

It provides clear context for use: the password file must be created by a human outside MCP, and passwords must not be passed as arguments or via MCP forms. No alternative tools are named, but the when-not condition is explicit.

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