Post profile

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

The annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, and the description is consistent with that by saying it updates profile fields. Beyond annotations it adds only the legacy-alias context, without describing permissions, side effects, or update semantics.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is efficient, though so minimal that its brevity reflects under-specification rather than full clarity.

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 profile-mutation tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently. It says what the endpoint is, but not what fields are accepted, how the request body parameters map, or what behavior to expect.

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 three parameters (`form`, `params`, `json_body`) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what any of them contain. 'Update profile fields' gives no mapping to these generic request-shaping 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 states a specific verb and resource: update profile fields. It also distinguishes the endpoint from `vaultwarden_put_profile` by identifying it as the legacy POST alias of PUT. It is clear, though extremely terse and not differentiated from every sibling profile-related 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?

Naming it a legacy POST alias of PUT gives the agent a clear alternative and context for when this route is relevant. It does not explicitly say 'prefer PUT' or state exclusions, but the legacy-alias framing provides usable routing guidance.

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