Archive cipher put

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful context that archiving hides the cipher from the default view and is distinct from trash, but it does not explain reversibility, permissions, effects on collections or folders, or what the response contains.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical distinction from trash is compact and directly useful.

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?

This is a mutation tool with four parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The one-line description does not explain the optional parameters, required identifiers, permissions, or what archiving changes, so it is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It implies that one cipher is targeted, loosely mapping to cipher_id, but it says nothing about form, params, or json_body, nor does it use the actual parameter name.

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: archive one cipher. It also explicitly distinguishes archiving from trashing, which is helpful. However, it does not name nearby siblings such as vaultwarden_archive_cipher_selected or vaultwarden_unarchive_cipher_put, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

It implies when to use this tool by contrasting archiving with trash: use this to hide a cipher from the default view rather than deleting it. It does not specify when to choose this over vaultwarden_archive_cipher_selected or when to use the unarchive sibling instead.

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