Сменить пароль по коду

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates the password, but does not mention whether the code is single-use, whether the old password is invalidated, whether the session is terminated, or any error conditions (e.g., expired code). For a security-sensitive operation, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming bloated.

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 security-sensitive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the expected payload structure beyond a vague hint, nor does it mention code expiry, error handling, or what happens after success. An agent would need to inspect the schema or guess at the nested fields.

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 100% for the single payload parameter, which is described as 'Почта, код и новый пароль' (Email, code, and new password). The description adds the purpose of the code but does not detail the nested object's fields or formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter at a high level.

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: 'Устанавливает новый пароль, используя код из письма' (Sets a new password using the code from the email). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling wata_password_reset_request, which presumably initiates the reset. It could be slightly more explicit about the two-step nature of the flow, but the purpose is clear.

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 implies usage context: it is the second step after receiving a code by email. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus wata_password_reset_request, nor does it mention prerequisites like having requested a reset first. The context is inferable from the name and description, but not explicitly stated.

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