Resend user invite

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 agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation that reaches outside the system. The description adds a useful state constraint ('pending registration invite' and that an email is sent), but says nothing about required permissions, what happens if no pending invite exists, rate limits, or whether a new token replaces the old one.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the tool's four undocumented parameters.

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 mutating, externally-visible email-sending tool with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent lacks enough information to call it correctly (identifier format, side effects, failure modes) without opening the schema.

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, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Critically, the required user_id is undocumented — it is unclear whether it is a numeric ID, UUID, or email address — and the opaque form/params/json_body parameters are not explained anywhere.

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 object: 'Resend a pending registration invite email.' An agent knows the action and the resource state ('pending'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like vaultwarden_resend_invite, vaultwarden_reinvite_member, or vaultwarden_bulk_reinvite_members, which read almost identically.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives. The word 'pending' implies the invite must exist and be unaccepted, but the agent is left to infer this and to guess how this differs from the other resend/reinvite tools.

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