update_vault

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that an update occurs but does not mention that confirm must be true to execute, that agentReason is required, or that the operation is a write with potentially irreversible effects. The 'agentReason' schema note also hints at unusual post-mutation validation, which is not surfaced in the description.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately states the identification modes, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool involves five parameters, required confirm-like semantics, multiple identifier options, and no output schema or annotations. The description does not convey the write-confirmation requirement, the required agentReason, or any safety concerns, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that shareId or vaultName are the identification alternatives, which helps disambiguate identifier parameters. However, it does not explain the roles of confirm or agentReason, though those are documented in the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('a vault'), and further specifies two identification methods: share ID or vault name. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling vault tools, but the name and scope make its purpose reasonably distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_vault, share_vault, transfer_vault, delete_vault, or unset_default_vault. The description only implies use for updating a vault, leaving context and exclusions unstated.

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