delete_vault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a vault will be deleted, with no mention of whether deletion is permanent, what happens to contained items, members, shares, or whether confirmation is required. The schema mentions the confirm flag, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the consequences of deleting a vault, require or clarify confirmation behavior, or note any effects on shared vaults or members. An agent would not know from this description whether the operation is reversible or whether additional safeguards are expected.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only the relation that a vault can be identified by 'share ID or vault name', which is consistent with the schema. It does not clarify whether exactly one identifier is required, what happens if both are provided, or the role of confirm beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the action ('Delete a vault') and the resource, and specifies the two acceptable identifiers ('by share ID or vault name'). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling vault tools like create_vault or update_vault, though it does not explicitly name a competing alternative.

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 does not indicate when to use delete_vault versus other tools, such as trash_item or delete_item, nor does it clarify whether this is a permanent, irreversible operation compared to soft-delete alternatives. There is no guidance about prerequisites, ownership requirements, or when shareId should be preferred over vaultName.

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