Send Create

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Quick-create'. It does not explain side effects, creation consequences, or prerequisites. With annotations covering mutability, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose and key parameter logic, second directs to alternatives. No redundant information. Front-loaded with core action and parameter patterns.

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 description covers main use cases and differentiates from siblings. However, it omits details about output format (no output schema) and assumes knowledge of 'Bitwarden Send'. For a quick-create tool with many parameters, it is largely complete but could mention return value.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds clarity by grouping parameters (e.g., 'type=text with text' and 'deleteInDays controls expiration deletion'). It provides meaningful relationships beyond individual schema descriptions, elevating it above baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Quick-create a Bitwarden Send' using specific parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_create_encoded and send_edit by labeling itself as 'quick' and mentioning alternatives for advanced use.

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 description provides explicit guidelines: use type=text with text or type=file with filename+contentBase64, and explains when to use alternatives (send_create_encoded, send_edit) for advanced templates or edits. This fully informs selection among siblings.

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