Post kdf

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and is open-world, and the description adds that the mutation specifically targets KDF algorithm and parameters. However, it does not disclose required permissions, security impact, whether the change affects existing encryption, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 text. The parenthetical examples efficiently clarify the scope of the KDF parameters.

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 mutation with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, parameter structure, authorization requirements, and the operational impact of changing KDF settings.

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?

The schema has three parameters (form, params, json_body) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain how KDF settings map to those wrappers. It does list relevant KDF concepts (algorithm, iterations, memory, parallelism), providing partial domain context, but this is insufficient for the undocumented parameters.

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 gives a specific mutation verb and resource: changing the KDF algorithm and parameters. It also names the relevant values (PBKDF2, Argon2id, iterations, memory, parallelism), so an agent can distinguish this from unrelated Vaultwarden admin and cipher tools.

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 states what the tool changes but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. The use case is implied only by the operation name.

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