Post group

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the HTTP method ('POST') and that the group ID goes in the path, which helps with invocation. It does not disclose what fields are updated, whether it is a full or partial update, or any permission requirements.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for a mutation with five undocumented parameters, but it is not verbose or poorly structured.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no output schema and poor parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It omits what the update does, which fields can change, authorization needs, and any side effects. An agent would need to guess heavily to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 5 parameters with only names. The description only clarifies that `group_id` is a path parameter; it says nothing about `org_id`, `form`, `params`, or `json_body`. This is far below the level needed to compensate for the schema gap.

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: 'Update a group'. It also clarifies this is a 'POST alias' with the id in the path, which distinguishes it from a generic POST create. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool `vaultwarden_put_group`, which likely performs the same update via PUT.

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 description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus `vaultwarden_put_group` or `vaultwarden_post_groups`. The parenthetical 'POST alias' hints that this is an HTTP-method variant, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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