Restore cipher selected admin

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful facts beyond the annotations: the operation is 'bulk' (multiple ciphers) and restores from trash. It does not explain how the ciphers to restore are identified, which is the main behavioral unknown here.

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 compact phrase with the operation and scope front-loaded; nothing wasted. Its brevity edges into under-specification, but for this dimension the text is efficient and well ordered.

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 opaque untyped parameters, no output schema, and a bulk mutation whose input format is undocumented, the description should say how the cipher selection is supplied and that admin credentials are required. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call from the description 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?

All three parameters (form, params, json_body) are untyped and have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full documentation burden — and it provides none. 'Bulk' hints that some selection of ciphers is passed, but nothing indicates which parameter holds it or in what shape.

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 (bulk restore) and resource (cipher, from trash) plus a scope qualifier ('via admin path') that distinguishes it from the non-admin siblings like vaultwarden_restore_cipher_selected. It does not name the alternative outright, but 'admin path' makes the distinction legible.

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?

The phrase 'via admin path' implies the usage context (admin-authenticated operations) and implicitly vs. the user-facing restore tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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