Put cipher partial

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

Annotations already declare it is non-read-only, non-destructive, and open-world; the description only adds the words "partial update," implying unchanged fields are preserved, but says nothing about auth requirements, side effects, or what a partial body does to existing cipher data.

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?

It is short but not concise in a useful sense — it is under-specified rather than efficiently front-loaded. The two words spent on "PUT alias" add little actionable value.

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 cipher mutation tool with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations beyond hints, the description omits everything an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about any of the four parameters, including the opaque `form`, `params`, and `json_body` properties. The description provides zero compensation for the undocumented schema.

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?

"Partial update (PUT alias)" largely restates the tool name and HTTP method rather than stating what is being partially updated or which cipher fields are affected. It gives no basis for distinguishing it from siblings such as vaultwarden_post_cipher_partial or vaultwarden_put_cipher.

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 statement of when to use this versus the many other cipher mutation tools (put_cipher, post_cipher_partial, put_cipher_admin, put_cipher_share). The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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