Post email token

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully adds that a code is actually emailed to the new address (a real side effect). However, it omits auth/password requirements, rate limits, and whether the old address is notified, which matter for a write operation with external effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical adds the key effect. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the undocumented request shape.

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 write tool with three 0%-documented parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description leaves the request payload and expected outcome unexplained. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without inspecting the underlying API.

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 coverage is 0% and the three parameters (form, params, json_body) are opaque generic passthroughs. The description provides no indication of what fields belong in the body (new email? password confirmation?), so an agent cannot construct the call from this definition alone.

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 and resource ('Request email-change verification token') and clarifies the effect ('send code to new address'), which distinguishes it from siblings like vaultwarden_post_verify_email_token. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't name the counterpart step 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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as vaultwarden_post_email, vaultwarden_post_verify_email_token, or vaultwarden_register_verification_email. The email-change flow context (request first, then verify) is only implied by the parenthetical.

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