Activate webauthn put

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds nothing about what registration does, whether an existing key is replaced, what auth or prior challenge is required, or what happens on failure.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a three-parameter mutation with no documented schema.

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 mutation tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint=true, the description is far too thin. It leaves an agent without enough context to construct the request or understand the effect.

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?

All three parameters (form, params, json_body) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It provides no syntax, format, or meaning for the opaque payload objects, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('WebAuthn key'), and the '(PUT alias)' parenthetical separates it from the non-PUT sibling vaultwarden_activate_webauthn. However, 'Register' conflicts slightly with the name's 'activate', and the HTTP-method framing doesn't clarify user-level intent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus vaultwarden_activate_webauthn, activate_authenticator, or generate_webauthn_challenge. The '(PUT alias)' note implies a variant but gives no condition for selecting it.

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