set_password

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('Set...') and a precondition (status == init), but it does not describe side effects, such as whether setting the password changes the system status or what occurs if the precondition fails. While the core behavior is clear, additional details about consequences are missing.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and a critical condition. Every word adds value, with the action and constraint clearly front-loaded. There is no redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential points: what it does and when it is valid. It does not explain what happens if the tool is used outside the valid condition or if it is idempotent, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward operation. The absence of return value explanation is acceptable because an output schema exists.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter 'password' has no description. The tool description does not add any information beyond the parameter name and type. For a low-coverage scenario, the description should compensate by explaining constraints (e.g., minimum length, allowed characters), but it does not. The parameter is self-explanatory to some degree, but the lack of added meaning limits the score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set the initial Firegex password.' It also specifies a unique condition ('Only valid while status == init') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'change_password', which presumably operates after initialization. This provides a specific verb and resource with a clear 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 explicitly states the condition for use: 'Only valid while status == init.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool and implies that for non-init status, alternative tools (e.g., change_password) should be used. Although it does not explicitly name alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the condition make the guideline effective.

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