Create Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: create_item accepts plaintext item content, which must never be logged or echoed elsewhere, and it is part of the decrypted cipher actions. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loads the tool purpose, but it mixes in family-level security guidance and notes about unrelated actions such as move_to_trash. Those warnings are relevant context, but the paragraph is not tightly focused on how to invoke create_item.

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?

Annotations and an output schema are present, and the description covers the plaintext handling caveat, so the agent knows the action is a write involving sensitive content. However, for a create operation whose only input is params_json, the description does not explain what item fields are expected, leaving a meaningful invocation gap.

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?

The tool has a single params_json parameter with 100% schema description coverage, but the schema only says it is a JSON object of parameters for the action. The description adds no detail about what fields should go inside params_json for a create-item operation, so it does not improve parameter understanding beyond the generic schema.

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 action and resource: "Create item (vaultwarden_ciphers)" and frames it within vault item cipher operations. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this high-level create action from the many sibling create-cipher routes such as vaultwarden_post_cipher or vaultwarden_post_ciphers_create.

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?

The description implies that create_item is one of the high-level decrypted cipher actions and says every other ciphers route is reachable via call_operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions for creating an item.

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