Delete cipher selected admin

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: the delete is 'permanent' (i.e. bypasses the normal soft-delete/trash path) and it is 'bulk' rather than single-item. It omits how selection is expressed and whether admin privileges or confirmation are required, so it is additive but not rich.

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?

Six words with zero waste and the most important qualifier ('bulk permanent delete') front-loaded. At the same time it is so terse that the terseness becomes a liability — there is no room for the selection or privilege detail a destructive bulk tool needs.

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?

This is a destructive, bulk, admin-scoped mutation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description supplies neither the payload shape nor any admin/permission prerequisite nor any confirmation of what is returned. Given the complexity and the dense sibling set, it leaves too much unexplained.

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 three entirely opaque parameters (form, params, json_body) that look like generic request wrappers. The description's 'bulk' hints that multiple cipher IDs must be supplied, but never says which parameter carries them or what shape they take. With low coverage the description must compensate and it does not.

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 names a specific verb (delete) and resource (cipher), qualified by three meaningful modifiers: bulk, permanent, and admin path. Against a sibling set crowded with delete_cipher_selected, _post, _put and their _admin variants, those qualifiers do real disambiguating work. It stops short of naming the non-admin counterpart that an agent would need to compare against.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'via admin path' hints at a privilege context but never states that an agent should prefer this only in admin scope, nor points to vaultwarden_delete_cipher_selected as the non-admin alternative. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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