Post ciphers

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 description only needs to add context. It adds the single constraint that collections can't be set here, but says nothing about auth requirements, whether the cipher is encrypted client-side, what happens on failure, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded with the action and ending with the one distinguishing constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness is achieved by omission rather than by efficient phrasing.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and completely undocumented parameters. Given that the schema provides nothing, the description needed to explain payload shape and any prerequisites; it does neither.

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?

Three parameters (form, params, json_body) have 0% schema description coverage and opaque names; the description does not map the cipher payload to any of them. Only the loose implication that the body describes a cipher is conveyed, leaving the agent to guess at serialization format and required 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?

It states a clear verb+resource ("Create a cipher") and scopes it to personal or org, which is more than a restatement of the name. But the sibling list contains several near-identical create tools (vaultwarden_post_cipher, vaultwarden_post_ciphers_create, vaultwarden_ciphers_create_item, vaultwarden_post_cipher_partial), and the description gives no basis for choosing among them.

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 parenthetical "no collections in this call" implies a constraint and hints that collection assignment happens elsewhere, but it never names the alternative tool or states when to prefer this create over the others. An agent is left to guess.

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