Change database password

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

Annotations already mark this as destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, signaling a mutating operation. The description adds behavioral context by warning about the need to update website configurations that use the database, which is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure beyond annotations that helps an agent. It doesn't mention whether the change is immediately applied, reversible, or what the response format is, but given that annotations cover the mutation flag, the added context is meaningful.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the additional guidance about the database name and website configuration is directly relevant. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan. Minor deduction for not separating the usage caveats into a clearer 'when to use' note, but overall it's well-sized.

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?

With 3 required parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and the main side-effect caveat. It doesn't mention whether this action might fail or require specific permissions, but for a password-change tool the prerequisites are adequately disclosed. The tool's name and sibling list make its scope clear, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, with all three parameters (username, name, password) described concisely. The description reinforces the 'name' parameter's constraint — it must be the full name from list databases — and clarifies that password is the new password. However, the description doesn't add much beyond the schema, which already explains each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Changes the password for the specified database user.' This clearly differentiates it from related tools like creating or deleting database users, and from other password-change tools like mail_changeMailboxPasswordV1 or VPS_setRootPasswordV1. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with the list databases endpoint, so it falls slightly short of full differentiation.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'The database name must be the full name returned by the list databases endpoint.' It also gives an important operational caution: the password must be updated in any website configuration using the database. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when this is the right action.

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