Verify otp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens on success or failure, whether the OTP is single-use, whether a session/token is issued, or what side effect justifies the non-read-only hint.

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?

Six words with zero filler and the key dependency front-loaded. It is efficiently written, though the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 verification tool with no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and three opaque parameters, the agent needs to know what payload to send and what a success response looks like. The description supplies neither, leaving a significant gap.

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 undocumented generic pass-throughs. The description only implies an OTP code is supplied, but never says which parameter carries it or what form/params/json_body should contain, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Verify") and resource ("the OTP") and ties itself to the sibling that produces the OTP (request_otp), so the agent can distinguish it from the many other vaultwarden tools. It stops short of stating what verification yields (session/token vs. boolean), so it is clear but not fully specified.

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?

"from request_otp" implies the ordering constraint — call request_otp first, then this — which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of OTP expiry, retry limits, or what to do if verification fails.

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