Password emergency access

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate the read/write profile. It usefully adds that the grantor's user key is re-encrypted under a NEW master key/password chosen by the grantee, which is real behavioral context. It still omits required permissions, whether the grantor's old credentials stop working, and reversibility for what is a security-critical mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse rather than verbose, though the terse phrasing borders on under-specification.

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 destructive-adjacent, security-critical emergency-access operation with no annotations covering auth/irreversibility, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description should carry far more: required state, inputs, and consequences. It leaves the agent unable to determine prerequisites or parameter usage.

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 four parameters (emer_id, form, params, json_body) are entirely undocumented. The description explains the cryptographic payload conceptually but never maps it to emer_id or clarifies what form/params/json_body hold, so an agent cannot construct the call from this text.

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 concrete action (grantee completes takeover by uploading the grantor's user key re-encrypted under a new master key), which goes beyond the title. However, it never reconciles itself with the very similar sibling vaultwarden_takeover_emergency_access, and the tool name ('password_emergency_access') does not match the takeover semantics described, leaving the agent unsure what distinct operation this is.

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 statement of when to call this versus vaultwarden_takeover_emergency_access, vaultwarden_confirm_emergency_access, vaultwarden_emergency_access_accept_invite, or vaultwarden_approve_emergency_access. The description gives no preconditions (e.g. that the grantee accepted the invite or that a takeover was approved).

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