vaultwarden_put_collections2_updateSet which collections a cipher belongs to and return the updated cipher, so you can reorganize Vaultwarden vault items by collection.
Set the collections a cipher belongs to (v2, returns updated 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 non-read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds that this is a v2 operation returning the updated cipher, but it does not explain that setting collections may replace the cipher's existing collection membership or what permissions are required for a mutation.
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?
It is a single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted phrasing. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description at least notes that the updated cipher is returned. However, for a mutation tool with four mostly undocumented parameters and zero schema coverage, the definition is too sparse to call safely without inspecting the underlying API.
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%, with four opaque parameters (form, params, json_body, cipher_id). The description mentions the cipher but does not explain how collections are supplied via json_body or what form/params contain, leaving the most important input structure 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Set the collections a cipher belongs to', and adds the v2/return-value detail. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings like vaultwarden_post_collections2_update or vaultwarden_put_collections_update.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similarly named collection-update siblings, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.