Post cipher partial

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value by disclosing that this mutation touches only unencrypted metadata and needs no re-encryption, which tells the agent the payload need not be a full encrypted cipher. It does not mention permissions, error behavior, or what a partial write leaves untouched.

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 compact sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably over-compressed given the undocumented schema, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 four-parameter mutation with a 0%-coverage schema and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing which parameter carries the folder/favorite data and what cipher_id expects. The behavioral intent is captured but call construction is not.

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% across four parameters, so the burden is fully on the description, and it only indirectly hints at the payload contents (folder, favorite). It never explains cipher_id, the relationship between form/params/json_body, or the expected payload shape for those two fields.

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 (partial update) and a narrow scope for the cipher resource: only folder assignment and the favorite flag. That distinguishes it from vaultwarden_put_cipher (full update) by implication, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

'Partial update: only folder assignment / favorite flag' implies when to use it (when only those two fields change) and 'no re-encryption needed' hints at why. But it never names alternatives such as vaultwarden_put_cipher_partial or vaultwarden_move_cipher_selected, so the agent must infer routing.

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