Put organization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. However, this is a PUT-style mutation where the critical behavior is unaddressed: whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, what permissions are required, and what gets changed on the server. With 4 opaque parameters and no output schema, the description carries a large remaining burden and does not meet it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler beyond the vague 'etc.' — efficient, though the brevity is achieved partly by omitting needed information rather than by disciplined editing.

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 mutating organization-level tool with no output schema, a vague multi-body-parameter schema, and a large sibling set of other put_* organization mutations, the description should clarify scope, permissions, and update semantics. It provides only a field list, leaving an agent unable to call this confidently.

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 four parameters (form, params, json_body, org_id) are described nowhere. The description hints that name and billing email are updatable fields but never maps them to 'json_body', 'form', or 'params', nor explains why three overlapping body-like parameters exist. It adds marginal semantics but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (update) and resource (organization settings) and gives two example fields, so the core intent is clear. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings that also mutate organization-level configuration, such as vaultwarden_put_settings_domains or vaultwarden_put_policy, and the trailing 'etc.' leaves the scope of the update open.

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 this tool should be chosen over alternatives, no preconditions (admin/owner permissions are not mentioned), and no indication of what it should not be used for. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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