Post email

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a mutating but non-destructive confirmation endpoint. It adds useful context that the operation uses a token and new encrypted keys, but it does not disclose auth requirements, token lifetime, error behavior, or what happens to existing keys. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its extreme brevity leaves important distinctions to inference rather than completely closing them.

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 security-sensitive email-change confirmation mutation with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain required inputs beyond token and keys, authentication context, success/failure behavior, or how the generic form/params/json_body parameters should be populated.

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 the three parameters are named only generically as form, params, and json_body with no types or descriptions. The description mentions token and new encrypted keys, which partially indicates payload content, but it does not map those concepts to any parameter name or explain the distinction between form, params, and json_body.

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 action: confirming an email change using a token and new encrypted keys. This is clearer than the generic name/title 'Post email' and distinguishes it from simple email sending or token retrieval tools. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, 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?

The phrase 'Confirm email change' implies the situation in which this tool is used: after an email change request, with a token and new encrypted keys. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as vaultwarden_post_email_token or vaultwarden_post_verify_email_token, and no exclusions are stated.

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