Vaultwarden Accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it largely fails to. It says it dispatches by route name but does not disclose that some dispatched routes are mutating/destructive (2FA disable, emergency access grants, account deletion), any permission or auth requirements, or rate limits. Naming the dispatch pattern is mildly useful, but the safety profile of a multi-domain router is undisclosed.

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 compact lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource list before the dispatch explanation. The trailing 'CONCEPT:VW-ECO.mcp.account-operations' token is non-prose noise that costs a bit of polish but the core text is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a router spanning four distinct API domains, the description stops short of clarifying how route names map to actions or which sub-domains carry destructive operations, leaving an agent to discover that via list_actions. Minimally adequate for the complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the action='list_actions' discovery path, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming-convention detail for 'action' or 'params_json' beyond what the schema states, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 clear verb ('Operate') and enumerates the specific resources it covers: account profile, two-factor methods, emergency access, and audit event feeds. It also explains the dispatch mechanism ('Dispatches to every Vaultwarden accounts, two_factor, emergency_access, and events API route by its route name'), which distinguishes it from siblings like vaultwarden_ciphers or vaultwarden_organizations. The domain scoping gives a competent agent enough to tell it apart from the other module tools.

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?

Usage is only implied by the domain listing: the agent infers it should pick this tool for account/2FA/emergency/audit operations. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no named alternative among the eight siblings, and no mention in the description that action='list_actions' is the discovery entry point (that hint lives only in the schema). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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