Activate yubikey

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond them: no statement of required permissions, whether the change is reversible, whether an existing 2FA method is replaced, or what happens on failure. For a security-setting mutation this is a thin contribution.

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?

Four words with zero filler and the action front-loaded, but the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema, three wholly undocumented parameters, and no annotation detail about the auth/permission model needs more than this. The description leaves the agent unable to construct a correct call with confidence.

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?

Three parameters (form, params, json_body) exist with 0% schema description coverage and no types, only default null. The description mentions no parameters at all, so the agent gets no help on what to supply to activate a YubiKey (e.g. an OTP or key identifier).

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 pairs a specific verb ('Enable') with a specific resource ('YubiKey OTP 2FA'), so the agent knows exactly what capability is being turned on. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling vaultwarden_activate_yubikey_put, nor from generate_yubikey, leaving ambiguity about which to call.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus vaultwarden_activate_yubikey_put, vaultwarden_generate_yubikey, or the other activate_* 2FA tools. No prerequisites (e.g. a YubiKey must already be generated) or exclusions are stated.

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