vaultwarden_post_attachment_shareRe-keys an attachment when its cipher is shared to an organization, ensuring the attachment remains accessible under the organization key.
Re-key an attachment when its cipher is shared to an org
| 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 establish that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the action is a re-key tied to organization sharing, but it does not explain permissions, side effects, or whether existing attachment access is invalidated.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and condition immediately.
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 five parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and a mutation endpoint, one sentence is not enough. An agent lacks parameter-level guidance and behavioral details needed to call this correctly beyond the two required IDs.
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 five parameters, including opaque fields like form, params, and json_body. The description only implies attachment and cipher context and does not document any parameter names, formats, or usage.
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 action (re-key an attachment) and the triggering condition (when its cipher is shared to an org). This distinguishes it from generic attachment upload/delete siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
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 condition 'when its cipher is shared to an org' gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to related share tools such as put_cipher_share or post_cipher_share.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.