Vaultwarden Sends

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it discloses the non-obvious multiplexing behavior (every sends route dispatched by route name) plus that removal is among the actions. It does not state auth requirements, permission scope, or whether removal is permanent/irreversible, which is a real gap for a tool that includes destructive operations.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb/resource summary and kept to two short lines plus an identifier. The trailing CONCEPT tag is inert for an agent but does not bloat the text meaningfully.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameters are fully documented, so return values and argument shape are covered. What is missing is behavioral context for a multiplexer with no annotations: which actions mutate state, auth/permission needs, and any irreversibility of remove.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the list_actions discovery hint, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or syntax detail for action or params_json beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verbs (create, list, update, remove) and the resource (Bitwarden Sends, text or file), which clearly separates it from siblings like vaultwarden_ciphers or vaultwarden_folders. It also discloses the dispatch mechanism (routing by Route.name). It stops short of enumerating the concrete operations, which it defers to the list_actions action.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader must infer this tool handles all sends operations and that the schema's action='list_actions' is the discovery path. There is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings or when-not to use, though the routing hint gives a workable entry point.

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