Vaultwarden Folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing that list_folders/create_folder return decrypted folder names and that the tool covers both read and write. It does not state permission requirements, whether creates can fail on duplicates, or any rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutating tool.

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 core capability and the decryption caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and there is little waste. The trailing 'CONCEPT:VW-ECO.mcp.folder-operations' tag is noise for an agent reader but doesn't harm comprehension.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the dual-mode dispatch is covered. But for a tool that includes a write operation with zero annotations, the description should say more about write behavior, permissions, and the shape of params_json per action, which it leaves to the schema alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both action and params_json thoroughly. The description only adds the hint that create_folder takes a 'name' parameter, which is marginal beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource ('Read and write personal-vault folders') and names the specific operations (list_folders, create_folder) plus the fallback route mechanism. The domain scoping ('personal-vault folders') distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like vaultwarden_ciphers or vaultwarden_organizations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast against them.

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 explains the dispatch model (named actions vs. raw Route.name via call_operation) and notes list_actions exists, which is useful implied guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer folder operations over sibling tools, and no prerequisites 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.