Post send file v2 data

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write, so safety is covered. The description's one extra contribution is the two-phase sequencing, which is genuine context not in the annotations, but it omits payload format (raw bytes vs multipart), size limits, and what happens when the send_id/file_id pair is invalid or expired.

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 sentence with no filler; the parenthetical carries the phase information efficiently. It is arguably too terse for a five-parameter mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 five-parameter, zero-coverage, no-output-schema write operation, one line is far from sufficient. An agent cannot assemble a valid request from this description plus the opaque schema, and the second-phase prerequisite is only implied.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and none of the five parameters (send_id, file_id, form, params, json_body) are described anywhere. The phrase 'Send file bytes' hints that a binary/form payload is involved, but the agent gets no guidance on which of form/params/json_body carries the bytes or how send_id and file_id relate.

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 (upload) and a specific resource (encrypted Send file bytes), plus a phase qualifier ('v2 second phase') that separates it from the plain post_send_file and the v2 initiator. It stops short of explaining what phase one is, so the resource boundary is clear but the workflow identity is only half explained.

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?

'Second phase' implies this must follow the v2 initiator call, but the description never names vaultwarden_post_send_file_v2 as the prerequisite or says when not to use it. An agent can infer ordering but must guess at the actual precondition (do send_id/file_id come from phase one?).

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