Put cipher share

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, open-world mutation, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whose access is being granted, whether the operation is reversible or how to un-share, what permissions/organization membership are required, or what happens to existing shares. With zero annotation coverage of those semantics, the description carries the burden and fails to.

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?

There is no padding and the key phrase is front-loaded, but the extreme brevity here is under-specification rather than economy — the single fragment doesn't earn its place as a usable instruction.

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?

A 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, no annotations covering required permissions or reversibility, and an opaque free-form json_body — the description supplies none of the context needed to invoke it safely or 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 four parameters (form, params, cipher_id, json_body) are completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description doesn't even mention that a target (organization/collection IDs) must be supplied in json_body, which is the crux of a share operation.

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?

"Share a cipher" states a specific verb and resource, and "(PUT alias)" hints that this is the HTTP-PUT variant of the same operation as vaultwarden_post_cipher_share. However, it never says what sharing means here (to an organization? to collections? to users?) or which of the two share tools to prefer, so the sibling distinction is only implicit in jargon.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. For an alias endpoint whose sibling (vaultwarden_post_cipher_share) performs the same operation, guidance on which to call is exactly what an agent needs, and none is provided.

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