Put policy

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds only that it updates 'one policy by type', without explaining permissions, reversibility, side effects, or payload expectations beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is structurally efficient, though its brevity contributes to gaps captured in other dimensions.

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 five-parameter org policy mutation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not clarify the meaning of policy types, the organization scope, or the expected request body.

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 five parameters, so the description must carry the burden. 'By type' weakly hints at pol_type, but org_id, form, params, and json_body are left unexplained, making the schema difficult to use from the description alone.

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 and resource ('Update one policy'), which is clearer than the title alone. However, 'by type' is vague and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as vaultwarden_put_policy_vnext or vaultwarden_get_policy.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vaultwarden_put_policy_vnext, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The mutation intent is implied by 'Update' and the annotations, but the description adds no routing information.

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