Put collections update

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 mutation profile is covered. The description adds that this sets (i.e. replaces) a cipher's collection memberships and that the endpoint is legacy, which is useful context, but it omits what happens to existing memberships, permission requirements, and whether the legacy call behaves differently from v2.

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 short sentence with zero filler and the key scope ('collections a cipher belongs to') front-loaded. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a mutation tool handling opaque parameters.

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 write operation with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation and three generic wrapper parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot reliably construct a call from it without falling back on guesswork about the json_body structure.

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% across four parameters, including opaque wrappers named 'form', 'params' and 'json_body', yet the description explains none of them. It only indirectly hints that a collection payload and cipher identifier exist; the agent gets no guidance on which parameter carries the collection IDs or what format they take.

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 concrete verb ('Set') and resource ('the collections a cipher belongs to'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic cipher-update tools. The '(legacy v1)' qualifier also separates it from the v2 sibling vaultwarden_put_collections2_update, though the description does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use statement or exclusion, but the '(legacy v1)' tag implicitly signals this is the older endpoint and that a newer variant exists. An agent still has to infer from the sibling name which one to prefer, and nothing is said about prerequisites such as organization membership or collection access.

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