Post send file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description's only added behavioral signal is 'legacy single-phase upload', with nothing about auth requirements, what the payload must contain, size limits, or how the two-phase v2 flow differs. For a write operation that uploads file data, that is thin.

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 front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. Brevity is fine here, though the space saved is partly a symptom of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a dense sibling namespace of Send upload variants, the description leaves an agent without enough to construct a correct call or confirm it picked the right endpoint.

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) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description offers no guidance on what any of them should contain. The schema/documentation gap is total, and the description does nothing to compensate.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Create a file-type Send") and adds a qualifier ("legacy single-phase upload") that separates it from the v2 upload siblings by implication. It does not name vaultwarden_post_send_file_v2 as the modern alternative, so the distinction relies on the reader knowing what 'legacy' contrasts with.

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 'legacy' label hints at when this is appropriate versus the v2 siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must already know the Vaultwarden Send upload versioning story to choose correctly.

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