Delete member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it does not say whether removal is permanent, what happens to the member's vault data or shared collections, whether re-invite is possible, or what authorization is needed — context that matters for an irreversible org mutation.

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 short sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 destructive, open-world mutation in a very large sibling set, with 0% parameter documentation and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to confirm scope (single member), required permissions, and side effects before invoking.

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 five parameters. The words "member" and "org" weakly imply org_id and member_id, but the three additional parameters (form, params, json_body) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to 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?

"Remove one member from the org" gives a clear verb and resource and the word "one" hints at single-target scope versus vaultwarden_bulk_delete_member. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as vaultwarden_revoke_member, vaultwarden_remove_2fa, or vaultwarden_delete_user, so an agent still has to guess which removal tool applies.

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 adjacent member tools (bulk_delete_member, revoke_member, restore_member, edit_member), no prerequisites, and no mention of required admin/owner permissions. The only implied usage is 'delete a member', which the name already conveys.

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