bitwarden_remove_member

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'remove' without revealing consequences such as whether it is irreversible, revokes access immediately, or has any constraints (e.g., cannot remove the last owner). This is a destructive operation, and the lack of such context leaves a significant transparency gap.

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 appropriately sized—two sentences that immediately state the action and param meaning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a helpful cross-reference to list_members. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.

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 simple removal tool with one parameter, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter guidance. However, it omits important context such as permissions required, whether the action is reversible, and what happens if the member does not exist. An output schema exists but is not shown, so the description could still benefit from noting the result of the operation. Overall, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema only provides 'Member Id' with no description. The description adds critical meaning by specifying 'The member's UUID (see bitwarden_list_members),' clarifying the expected format (UUID) and how to obtain it. This goes beyond the schema's minimal title, effectively compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a member from the Bitwarden organization.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, invite, or get member, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only indirect hint is 'see bitwarden_list_members' for obtaining the UUID, but there is no clear directive on conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The tool's simple name implies its use case, but the description does not articulate it.

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