修改用户密码

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false and destructive=true, so the description doesn't contradict them. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the fact that it modifies a password, such as permission requirements or side effects. Given the annotations, a neutral score is appropriate.

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 compact, starting with a clear purpose statement, followed by a well-structured parameter list and a brief return note. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, but the line breaks and formatting could be improved for readability.

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 description covers the essential parameters and return value, but it omits failure behavior, required vs optional parameters, and any permission or error handling details. Since there is no output schema, the description should be more comprehensive, but it is adequate for a simple modification tool.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so clearly: uid, password (6-20 plaintext), and md5pass (32 MD5), with the mutual exclusivity constraint. This is far beyond what the schema provides.

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 function: '修改ClassIn用户密码' (Modify ClassIn user password). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on folders, files, courses, and user management.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as classin_register_user or classin_edit_teacher, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. It simply lists parameters without usage context.

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