Post events collect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful context that this is client-originated telemetry batching, but says nothing about auth requirements, payload shape, or what happens on ingestion.

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 tightly packed sentence with zero filler, front-loading the endpoint's nature. Slight loss for not signaling behavior or constraints.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotation explanation, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine payload structure or expected outcome from it.

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) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description offers no parameter-level meaning beyond implying an event batch payload. It does not compensate for the coverage gap or clarify which of the three carries the events.

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 resource and action: an event-ingestion endpoint that batch-reports UI events from web-vault. The telemetry/ingestion framing clearly separates it from sibling mutation tools like vaultwarden_post_cipher, though it doesn't name a close alternative.

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?

"Client-side ... used by web-vault" implies this is an internal endpoint driven by the browser client rather than an administrative tool an agent would normally invoke, but there's no explicit when-to-use/when-not or exclusion guidance.

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