Post access file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that access is anonymous and that the result is a download URL, but it does not explain side effects, error behavior, or what happens if the Send file is unavailable. No contradiction with 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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part of it contributes to identifying the endpoint's purpose and anonymous context.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It gives the high-level purpose and return type, but does not explain the required file_id or the optional form, params, and json_body parameters.

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 schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them explicitly. 'Send file' loosely implies file_id, but form, params, and json_body are left completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 specific action and resource: 'get a download URL for a Send file', and adds that this is anonymous. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this endpoint from closely related siblings such as vaultwarden_post_access, vaultwarden_post_access_file_legacy, or vaultwarden_download_send.

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 word 'Anonymous:' implies the key usage context, namely unauthenticated access to a Send file. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like vaultwarden_post_access, vaultwarden_post_access_legacy, or vaultwarden_download_send, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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