Admin delete organization

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value by disclosing the cascade ('all its data'), but says nothing about required admin privileges, whether confirmation is expected, or whether the deletion is recoverable in any way.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler — the destructive scope leads. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a high-impact operation.

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 high-blast-radius admin operation with 4 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description omits permissions, confirmation expectations, post-deletion effects on members/collections, and the identity of competing delete endpoints. 'Permanently delete … and all its data' is accurate but far from sufficient.

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 four parameters exist. The description never mentions org_id or the three generic wrapper params (form, params, json_body), leaving their meaning and expected formats entirely to inference. Only the required-parameter list in the schema hints that org_id is mandatory.

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 gives a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('an organization'), plus the scope of what is removed ('all its data'). It does not, however, distinguish this from near-identical siblings such as vaultwarden_organizations_delete_organization, vaultwarden_post_delete_organization, or vaultwarden_leave_organization, so an agent must guess which delete variant is the admin one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many other organization-removal siblings (leave_organization, purge_org_vault, organizations_delete_organization). No prerequisites, no admin-permission note, and no 'do not use if…' exclusion is given despite the tool being destructive.

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