Organizations 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 nothing beyond that: no statement of what is destroyed (members, collections, ciphers), whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or whether confirmation is needed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency, so it only meets the minimum bar.

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?

This is a destructive, irreversible-sounding operation with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond generic hints. For that complexity level, a four-word description leaves an agent without nearly everything it needs to invoke the tool safely.

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 provides no parameter meaning at all. The required org_id, plus the opaque form, params, and json_body properties (all untyped, no descriptions), are left entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot tell what org_id expects or what the other fields are for.

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 'Delete an organization' merely restates the tool name (organizations_delete_organization) and title. It does identify the verb and resource, but adds no scope, no distinction from siblings like vaultwarden_admin_delete_organization or vaultwarden_post_delete_organization, and no sense of what deletion means here.

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 guidance is given. The sibling list contains at least three plausible delete-organization tools (vaultwarden_admin_delete_organization, vaultwarden_post_delete_organization, vaultwarden_organizations_delete_organization) plus purge_org_vault, and the description offers nothing to choose between them or to say whether prerequisites exist.

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