Post send file v2

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavior by saying it registers metadata and returns an upload URL, but it does not cover authentication needs, the incomplete-Send lifecycle before data upload, or side effects.

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 immediately states the phase, resource type, and two key actions.

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 a mutating create flow with three opaque parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It hints at the return value (upload URL) but omits expected input structure, authentication, and how this step connects to the subsequent data-upload step.

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 tool description does not mention any of them or explain what metadata should be supplied. For a 0%-coverage schema, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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: 'Begin a file-type Send (v2)' and clarifies the two sub-actions 'register metadata, get upload URL'. It distinguishes this from generic Send creation by specifying file-type and v2, though it does not explicitly route to the likely follow-up sibling vaultwarden_post_send_file_v2_data.

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 'Begin' implies this is the first step in creating a file-type Send, which gives contextual usage. However, it does not state when to choose this over vaultwarden_post_send, vaultwarden_post_send_file, or the _v2_data sibling, nor does it name any exclusions.

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