Post cipher

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add write semantics on top - and it barely does. It never says whether the update is partial or full (significant given the existence of vaultwarden_post_cipher_partial and vaultwarden_put_cipher_partial), what happens to fields not supplied, or what permissions are required.

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?

Three words is concise but severely under-specified rather than efficient; there is no front-loaded scope, no payload description, and nothing to distinguish it from neighboring cipher tools.

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?

A mutation tool with an ambiguous payload schema, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and a description that contradicts the tool's own name is not callable with confidence. Nothing tells the agent how to build json_body/form/params or what state it will leave the cipher in.

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 there are 4 undocumented parameters, including opaque ones like 'form', 'params', and 'json_body'. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so an agent calling this must guess the shape of the write payload.

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 says 'Update a cipher', which is a verb+resource, but it conflicts with the tool's own name and title ('post_cipher' / 'Post cipher') and does not distinguish it from the many siblings that clearly update ciphers (vaultwarden_put_cipher, vaultwarden_put_cipher_partial, vaultwarden_ciphers_edit_item). An agent cannot tell whether this creates, replaces, or partially patches a cipher.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives even though the sibling list contains at least three other cipher-write tools. The only implied context comes from the word 'update'.

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