Post access legacy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context by saying the access is anonymous and legacy, but it does not explain the side effect implied by readOnlyHint=false (e.g., access count mutation) or other behavioral constraints.

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 is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the anonymous/legacy qualifiers appear immediately. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in parameter and side-effect coverage.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and a non-read-only annotation, the description is too thin to be complete. It covers the access_id and legacy/anonymous context but omits the other three parameters and the behavioral implications of a POST access operation.

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% for 4 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only identifies the required access_id; the form, params, and json_body parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 verb ('fetching') and resource ('a Send') scoped by access id, and it explicitly marks the path as 'legacy', which distinguishes it from the modern post_access sibling. It does not name the alternative tool directly, but the legacy qualifier is enough to differentiate purpose.

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 usage through 'Anonymous' and 'legacy path', suggesting this is for unauthenticated legacy clients. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of vaultwarden_post_access or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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