Put cipher share selected

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether existing cipher shares are replaced or merged, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is reversible for a bulk mutation.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, but its brevity is under-specification rather than discipline — the space saved is not spent on any of the missing guidance.

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 bulk write tool with three fully undocumented parameters, no output schema, and sibling ambiguity against several other share/move operations, the description is far too thin to be safely invocable.

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?

Three parameters (form, params, json_body) with 0% schema description coverage, no types, no required fields, and no enums. The description supplies zero information about what goes into any of them, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call.

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 ('share'), resource ('ciphers'), bulk scope, and destination ('an org'), which distinguishes it from the single-item sibling vaultwarden_put_cipher_share. It does not explain the 'selected' selection mechanism, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus vaultwarden_put_cipher_share or vaultwarden_post_cipher_share, no prerequisite conditions (org membership, admin rights), and no indication of how ciphers are selected for sharing.

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