Post attachment v2

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds useful behavior (it registers metadata and returns an upload URL) but omits auth requirements, what metadata gets stored, and how the returned URL is consumed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse but every phrase contributes; the colon fragment is a minor structural weakness only.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, this description is too thin. It hints at the return value but leaves most parameters and the two-step upload flow 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 4 parameters (form, params, cipher_id, json_body), so the description carries the burden but explains none of them. It only implicitly signals cipher association and metadata registration, leaving form/params/json_body undefined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Begin attachment upload') and clarifies the operation is metadata registration plus retrieving an upload URL. The '(v2)' label hints at the newer variant but does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like vaultwarden_post_attachment, vaultwarden_post_attachment_v2_data, or vaultwarden_post_send_file_v2.

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 word 'Begin' implies this is the first step of a multi-phase flow, but the description never names the follow-up step (likely vaultwarden_post_attachment_v2_data) or states when to prefer it over the v1 attachment sibling. Usage is only implied.

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