vaultwarden_delete_attachmentDeletes a specific attachment from a Vaultwarden/Bitwarden cipher using its cipher ID and attachment ID, enabling removal or cleanup of stored files.
Delete an attachment
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| cipher_id | Yes | ||
| json_body | No | ||
| attachment_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention permissions, irreversibility, or side effects, leaving no extra behavioral context.
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 phrase is short and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It has no wasted words but also almost no 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?
With five parameters at 0% description coverage, no output schema, and numerous near-identical delete_attachment siblings, the description is not complete enough to guide correct selection or invocation.
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% for five parameters, including required cipher_id and attachment_id plus unexplained form, params, and json_body. The description provides no parameter meaning whatsoever.
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 'Delete an attachment' merely restates the tool name and title. It gives no scope, no distinction from sibling variants such as vaultwarden_delete_attachment_admin, vaultwarden_delete_attachment_post, or vaultwarden_delete_attachment_post_admin.
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 the many other attachment-deletion or attachment-retrieval siblings. The agent must infer selection entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.