vaultwarden_delete_cipher_putSoft-delete a vault cipher by moving it to the trash using its cipher ID. Recoverable removal keeps items out of active vault views without permanent deletion.
Soft-delete (move to trash) a cipher
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| cipher_id | Yes | ||
| json_body | No |
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 and readOnlyHint=false, so the main safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that this is a soft-delete, not a permanent deletion, though it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or response behavior.
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 efficient sentence with the key effect front-loaded. It contains no redundant wording or 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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. It clarifies soft-delete behavior but omits parameter meaning, sibling routing, and operational prerequisites.
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, so the description must carry the burden. It only implies that the target is a cipher, without explaining cipher_id, form, params, or json_body, leaving most parameter semantics opaque.
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 states a specific verb and resource: soft-delete a cipher, and clarifies that it moves the item to trash. This distinguishes it from a permanent-delete interpretation, but it does not differentiate it from many similarly named sibling variants such as POST-based deletes or selected-cipher deletes.
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 implies the tool is for trashing a single cipher, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of the many sibling delete, archive, restore, or move-to-trash tools. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.