Post settings domains

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates external state without being destructive. The description adds nothing beyond that—it does not explain what happens to existing equivalent-domain entries, whether it overwrites or merges, or what authentication is required.

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 short phrase, front-loaded and not verbose. It is appropriately sized in terms of word count, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than conciseness in content.

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 no output schema, zero parameter description coverage, and only sparse annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the request body format, the effect of the operation on existing settings, or any expected return behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill.

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?

There are 3 parameters (form, params, json_body) with 0% schema description coverage. The description only vaguely mentions 'equivalent-domains list', which hints at the intended payload but does not explain which parameter carries it or how the three parameters 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?

The description states a verb and resource ('Set equivalent-domains list'), which gives a basic idea of purpose. However, 'set' is vague and it does not distinguish this POST endpoint from the sibling 'vaultwarden_put_settings_domains' or 'vaultwarden_get_settings_domains', leaving an agent unsure which variant 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the PUT or GET settings-domains siblings. The name implies POST vs PUT, but the description does not provide any usage context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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