Post ciphers admin

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 write/read safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation is performed on behalf of the org as an admin, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not disclose required permissions, error behavior, or what 'unassigned/admin path' means operationally.

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 the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical is vague rather than wasteful, but the whole description earns its place as a quick summary.

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 three undefined parameters with no required fields, so the description must carry more weight. It covers the 'what' but omits permissions, payload semantics, and the distinction between the three opaque request-body parameters. Not adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

All three parameters (form, params, json_body) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. An agent has no way to know which payload goes in 'form' versus 'params' versus 'json_body', nor their structure or required fields. The description provides zero compensation for a completely opaque schema, mirroring the low-calibration case.

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 (Create) and resource (cipher) with a clear scope modifier: as an org admin on behalf of the org, on the admin/unassigned path. This does distinguish it from personal cipher creation. However, among the densely similar siblings vaultwarden_post_cipher_admin, vaultwarden_post_ciphers_create, and vaultwarden_post_ciphers_import, the description does not clarify the exact boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., admin/owner role required, org membership), and no exclusions. It implies an admin context but never tells the agent when to pick this over vaultwarden_post_cipher_admin or vaultwarden_post_ciphers_create, which is critical given the near-identical siblings.

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