Post cipher share

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 covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that ownership moves out of the personal vault into an organization, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether the cipher is copied versus transferred, or reversibility (unshare path).

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 short sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded, but its brevity is under-specification rather than true economy given the undocumented parameters.

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 mutating, open-world share operation with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description omits essentials: which organization/collection is targeted, what the request body shape is, and what the caller gets back. An agent could not invoke this correctly from the definition alone.

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, and the description names none of them — cipher_id (the only required one) and the opaque form/params/json_body are entirely undocumented in both places. The one sentence gives no hint about what must be supplied to complete a share.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: moving a personal cipher into an organization, with the "share" gloss tying it to the API concept. It does not distinguish itself explicitly from sibling share-related tools such as vaultwarden_put_cipher_share or vaultwarden_put_cipher_share_selected, but the resource-level purpose is unmistakable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many adjacent siblings (put_cipher_share_selected, move_cipher_selected, post_cipher_partial). It also does not state prerequisites such as organization membership, admin/owner role, or the need for a destination collection.

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