Post delete recover

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that by disclosing the mechanism — an email is dispatched as part of the deletion flow, i.e. an out-of-band, state-advancing side effect. It stops short of the details that matter for this class of endpoint: whether the call succeeds even when no account exists (enumeration behavior), rate limiting, and whether the deletion is actually armed or only after token confirmation.

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 filler, which is appropriate in size. The parenthetical, however, spends words on a comparison ('forgot-password-style') that adds ambiguity rather than clarity, so brevity comes at the cost of precision.

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 endpoint with three undocumented, untyped parameters and no output schema, the description should state preconditions, the confirmation step, and the observable result. It covers only the high-level intent, so an agent could invoke it correctly in spirit but not confidently in detail.

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 three generically named parameters (form, params, json_body) with no types or descriptions, so the schema provides essentially no help. The description implies an email identifier is involved but never names the field, its location (body vs. query), or the expected payload shape, leaving the agent to guess how to construct the request.

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 names the action (requesting an account-deletion email) rather than merely restating the name, which is more than the title 'Post delete recover' conveys. However, the parenthetical 'forgot-password-style deletion init' is cryptic, and among ~200 Vaultwarden siblings the agent still cannot easily tell this apart from vaultwarden_post_delete_account, vaultwarden_post_delete_recover_token, or vaultwarden_put_recover_account. The purpose lands as 'roughly initiate an account deletion by email' rather than a precise, differentiated function.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of prerequisites (must an account exist? is authentication required?), no mention of what to call next, and no reference to the near-identical siblings such as post_delete_recover_token or post_delete_account. The phrase 'deletion init' only faintly implies this is the first step of a multi-step flow.

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