Post org import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds only that writes are bulk and scoped to an org; it says nothing about duplicate handling, partial-failure behavior, or permission requirements for a mutation that could affect an entire org vault.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the parenthetical used for disambiguation. No filler, though the parenthetical is slightly ambiguous rather than clarifying.

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?

This is a complex bulk mutation into an organization vault with four completely undocumented parameters and no output schema. A one-line description cannot carry that burden — payload format, required permissions, and success/failure semantics are all missing.

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?

All four parameters (form, query, params, json_body) have 0% schema description coverage and no declared types, so the schema provides essentially nothing. The phrase 'personal-vault-style import' faintly hints at the expected payload shape but is never mapped to any parameter, leaving json_body's structure entirely undocumented.

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 verb and resource: bulk import of ciphers into an organization. The parenthetical 'personal-vault-style import scoped to an org' differentiates it in spirit from vaultwarden_post_ciphers_import, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer which of the two import endpoints to use.

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 word 'bulk' and the org scoping imply this is for mass-loading ciphers into an organization rather than one-at-a-time creation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of required org admin/owner privileges, and no named alternative such as vaultwarden_post_ciphers_import or vaultwarden_ldap_import.

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