Archive cipher selected

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state without being classified destructive. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say what happens to already-archived items, whether archiving is reversible (unarchive sibling exists but isn't referenced), or what permissions are required. Given three opaque parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 words, zero waste, but under-specification rather than efficiency — the description is too short to carry any of the needed information. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 mutating bulk operation with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain the selection mechanism and the effect of archiving. It leaves all of that unstated, though the name plus annotations at least convey it is a non-destructive bulk write.

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% and the three parameters ('form', 'params', 'json_body') are completely generic containers with no types or descriptions. The description does not mention how the cipher selection is expressed, so the agent has no way to know what to pass.

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 and resource ('archive ciphers') and adds scope ('bulk'), which distinguishes it from the single-cipher archive variant. However, it never explains what 'selected' means — presumably a set of cipher IDs — and does not differentiate it from vaultwarden_archive_cipher_put or vaultwarden_unarchive_cipher_selected beyond the word 'bulk'.

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_archive_cipher_put or the newer ciphers_* tools. No prerequisites (authentication, ownership/admin rights) or exclusions are stated; the agent must infer everything from the name.

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