Post attachment v2 data

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations lack: the payload must already be encrypted and this is the second of two phases. It omits auth requirements, what happens on failure, and whether the upload is idempotent or resumable.

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 clause with no filler; the essential scope ('v2 second phase') comes first. It is terse almost to a fault, but no sentence is wasted.

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 five-parameter mutation in a multi-phase upload protocol with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too thin. An agent still cannot tell which fields to populate with the encrypted blob, what the response returns, or what to do once the second phase completes.

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 coverage is 0% and three of the five parameters (form, params, json_body) are untyped with null defaults, so nothing structured explains them. The description only alludes to 'encrypted attachment bytes' without saying which parameter carries the bytes or what cipher_id/attachment_id must reference, leaving most of the payload shape undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource (encrypted attachment bytes) and locates it in the v2 protocol as the second phase, which distinguishes it from the sibling vaultwarden_post_attachment_v2 (first phase). It does not name that sibling explicitly, but the 'v2 second phase' cue lets an agent place it.

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?

'v2 second phase' implies an ordering constraint—this must be invoked after the v2 initiation call—but the description never says so outright or names vaultwarden_post_attachment_v2 as the prerequisite. No exclusions or alternatives are given, so 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.