Put member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only a field list and says nothing about permissions required, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or how existing collection/group access is affected.

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 description is a single compact phrase with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. However, the parenthetical field list is terse and does not provide much structural guidance for an agent invoking a multi-parameter mutation.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description is far too thin. It names the resource and editable facets but omits enough usage, parameter, and behavioral context that an agent would need to inspect the schema and guess at proper usage.

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 five parameters, so the description carries the burden but fails to explain org_id, member_id, form, params, or json_body. It mentions role, collection access, and groups at a high level, but does not map them to any parameter or clarify the expected structure.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Edit a member') and names the editable facets (role, collection access, groups). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from close siblings such as vaultwarden_edit_member or vaultwarden_update_membership_type.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite many sibling tools that also modify member data. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Edit'; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria are provided.

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