Put send

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/no-destruction profile is covered. The description adds the list of mutable fields but says nothing about ownership/auth requirements, whether omitted fields are cleared (PUT semantics), or what happens to an expired/revision-bumped Send. Since annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is fair.

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 zero wasted words; the verb and the field set come first. It is compact and easy to scan, though the compression contributes to the missing semantics rather than offsetting it.

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 mutation tool with four unlabeled parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain how to structure the body, what permissions are needed, and how it relates to vaultwarden_post_send. None of that is present, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it from this definition alone.

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 parameter names (form, params, json_body) are opaque, so the description must compensate heavily. The field list (name/notes/text/expiry/password/max access count) is additive, but it never explains which of form/params/json_body carries those fields, nor what send_id's format is — the gap remains substantial.

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 (Send) and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, distinguish this from the many Send-related siblings such as vaultwarden_post_send (create), vaultwarden_get_send, or vaultwarden_delete_send, leaving that routing to the agent.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing states that this is the update counterpart to vaultwarden_post_send, that a send_id must already exist, or which sibling to pick when creating versus editing a Send. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the tool name alone.

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