Post delete emergency access

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 covered. The description adds only 'Delete/revoke (POST alias)' and says nothing about what is revoked, whether it is irreversible, or what permissions are required. For a destructive operation with annotations already carrying the core warning, this adds too little behavioral context beyond the safety hints.

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?

The text is brief but under-specified rather than concise; 'Delete/revoke (POST alias)' is a fragment that omits the resource and key usage context. It is front-loaded only in the sense that the verb appears first, but the sentence does not earn its place as a useful tool description.

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 emergency-access mutation with four parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description does not say what emergency access is revoked, what the required emer_id identifies, or how the POST alias differs from the DELETE endpoint, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly from the description.

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 mentions no parameters at all, including the required emer_id. The agent gets no description-level semantics for emer_id, form, params, or json_body, so the description completely fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 states a delete/revoke action but does not name the resource (emergency access) in the description itself; the tool name and title carry that information. The parenthetical '(POST alias)' hints at a method-specific variant but is vague without context. Purpose is only minimally clear from the description alone.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling vaultwarden_delete_emergency_access or other emergency-access tools. The '(POST alias)' fragment implies an alternative HTTP form but does not tell the agent which conditions select this alias instead of the DELETE variant.

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