Post emergency access

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 nothing about what fields a POST update touches, whether unspecified fields are cleared, or what permissions are required for a mutation. "Alias" hints at duplication but is unexplained.

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?

At seven words it is certainly concise and front-loads the action, but this brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing. There is no wasted text, but there is also almost no useful text.

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 mutation tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many closely named siblings, the description omits the update payload semantics, permission requirements, and return behavior. It is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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 parameter names (form, params, json_body, emer_id) are opaque with no titles or descriptions. The description does not define which fields belong in json_body or how form/params differ, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though "emergency-access grant" loosely ties emer_id to the target grant.

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 names a specific verb ("Update") and resource ("an emergency-access grant"), which is more than a tautology. However, "(POST alias)" is cryptic and does not explain how this differs from the sibling vaultwarden_put_emergency_access, which appears to be the canonical update and likely a near-identical tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than vaultwarden_put_emergency_access, vaultwarden_get_emergency_access, vaultwarden_delete_emergency_access, or the many other emergency-access siblings. The agent must infer the choice from the HTTP method alone.

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