Delete send

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 agent knows this is an irreversible mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of whether the Send is permanently purged, whether the deletion can be undone, what permissions or ownership are required, or how the API responds. It is consistent with the annotations but contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no wasted words, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is nothing front-loaded because there is effectively nothing to front-load.

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 tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and dozens of similarly named siblings, this definition is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine the ID format, the effect on shared/expired Sends, or the expected response from the description alone.

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 the description supplies no parameter information at all. Four parameters (`send_id`, `form`, `params`, `json_body`) are entirely undocumented, and even the required `send_id` has no type or format stated anywhere, so the agent must guess how to identify the Send.

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 restates the tool name and title almost verbatim: "Delete a Send" against `vaultwarden_delete_send` / "Delete send". It confirms the resource is a Vaultwarden Send rather than a cipher or folder, but adds no scope, permanence, or ownership information that would distinguish it from the many other delete siblings.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `vaultwarden_put_send` (revoke/update) or `vaultwarden_get_sends`/`vaultwarden_download_send`. The only implied guidance comes from the verb 'delete', leaving the agent to infer prerequisites and consequences.

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