Update revision users

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, is open-world, and is non-destructive. The description adds that the effect is a client-sync revision bump, but does not explain permissions needed, idempotency, or what clients experience. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and every word contributes to the description.

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 mutating, open-world tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits how to specify users, required permissions, and the expected effect on clients, leaving important operational details absent.

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) have 0% schema description coverage and are untyped. The description only hints that users are involved via 'one/many users' but does not explain how to identify users or what each parameter should contain.

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 action: forcing a client-sync revision bump for one or many users. The verb and resource are clear, though the jargon 'revision bump' may require some inference and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like vaultwarden_revision_date.

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?

Gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only implies it is for forcing a sync revision update across users.

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