bitwarden_update_member_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool REPLACES the member's entire group list and does not append, which is a critical destructive behavior. It also clarifies the consequence and provides a safe usage pattern, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It opens with a clear one-sentence summary, follows with an important caveat in bold, then provides a concise usage workflow, and finally lists params with references to related tools. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutating operation with a non-obvious replacement behavior), the description covers all necessary aspects: the action, the critical side effect, the safe usage pattern, and each parameter's meaning. Since the output schema is provided, return values need not be explained. The description is fully sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter names and types, but the description adds meaningful context: member_id is described as 'The member's UUID' with a pointer to bitwarden_list_members, and group_ids is described as the 'Full list of vault group UUIDs' with a pointer to bitwarden_list_groups. This goes beyond the schema and clarifies the expected values and their role in the operation.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Set which vault groups a member belongs to') and explicitly identifies it as the 'group invitation' action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_member_groups or remove_member. The scope is unambiguous: it updates a member's group memberships.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance, including a critical warning that the operation REPLACES the entire group list rather than appending. It also gives a concrete workflow for safely adding a member to a group without losing existing memberships: first call bitwarden_list_member_groups, merge the new group IDs, then pass the full merged list. This directly addresses when to use this tool and how to avoid unintended side effects.

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