Deauth user

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

The description usefully discloses the side effect (all sessions and the security stamp are invalidated), which is more than the annotations say. However it doesn't mention required admin privileges, whether the user can immediately re-login, or reversibility, and the annotations already flag this as a non-read-only open-world operation.

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 the action first and the effect in parentheses; no filler.

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 admin operation with four parameters, zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without the detail it needs: which parameter identifies the user, what auth/role is required, and what the call returns.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description says nothing about any of them. Only 'user_id' is inferable from the wording; the form/params/json_body parameters are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb ('Force-logout') and resource (a user), plus the mechanism (invalidate all sessions/security stamp), which separates it from delete_user or disable_user at a conceptual level. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like vaultwarden_disable_user, vaultwarden_delete_user and vaultwarden_delete_sso_user in the same family, the description never says when session revocation is preferable to disabling or deleting the account.

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