Password hint

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this causes external side effects. The description adds only that an email is sent, which is roughly what the name implies; it says nothing about how the target account is identified, whether the request is rate-limited, or whether it leaks account existence. For an unauthenticated-facing email trigger with opaque parameters, that is a significant disclosure 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?

It is one short sentence with no filler, but it reads as a truncated fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose and effect. Brevity here comes at the cost of the information the description should have provided.

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?

With no output schema, three undocumented free-form parameters, and an external email side effect, the description needs to explain the request shape and outcome. It explains neither, leaving the caller unable to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

All three parameters (form, params, json_body) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the full burden and it contributes nothing — no mention of where the email/username goes, which param to populate, or whether body fields are required. An agent cannot reliably construct a call from this.

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 phrase 'Request password hint be emailed' identifies a verb (request) and an effect (email a password hint), so the intent is inferable. However it never says whose hint, on what basis, or how this differs from nearby tools such as vaultwarden_request_otp or vaultwarden_password_emergency_access. The sentence fragment phrasing leaves the purpose only vaguely pinned down.

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 use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. must a user be unauthenticated or identified first), and no exclusions. The agent must guess its place among the many auth/email-related siblings.

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