Put profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond that. Critically, it does not say whether this is a partial or full replacement (PUT semantics), whether omitted fields are cleared, or what permissions are required.

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 phrase with the resource and fields front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves it under-specified rather than genuinely tight.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a mutation that touches user profile data, the description leaves major gaps: request shape, replacement semantics, and auth requirements are all unaddressed.

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 three parameters (form, params, json_body) are completely opaque. The description lists field names but never maps them to any parameter or explains the expected shape of json_body, so an agent still cannot 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 (update) and resource (profile fields) and even names the mutable fields (name, avatar color). It does not differentiate from close siblings such as vaultwarden_post_profile or vaultwarden_put_avatar, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the description alone.

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 vs vaultwarden_post_profile, vaultwarden_profile, or vaultwarden_put_avatar, and no prerequisites such as authentication or ownership of the profile. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name.

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