Organizations send invite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the writing/side-effecting nature is covered. The description adds only that the invite goes out by email, but says nothing about permission requirements, what happens on a duplicate invite, whether pending invites block re-invites, or the shape of the payload to submit.

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 waste, but it is under-specified rather than tight; the brevity comes at the cost of missing payload and permission information.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations covering permissions, and four completely undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent without enough to construct a valid call or predict the outcome.

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 four parameters whose names (form, params, json_body) are entirely opaque, and org_id is untyped. The description mentions an email but never says which parameter carries it, so it 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('invite a user to the organization') plus the delivery channel ('by email'), which is enough to understand the action. It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as vaultwarden_invite_user, vaultwarden_resend_invite, or vaultwarden_bulk_reinvite_members.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many other invite-related siblings (invite_user, resend_invite, bulk_confirm_invite, organizations_accept_invite). No prerequisites are mentioned, such as admin/owner role requirements for inviting into an organization.

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