appwrite_create_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it states nothing about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the function is immediately executable after creation. It does not clarify that this is a write operation modifying project state, nor does it explain the relationship between function creation and the subsequent deployment process.

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 consists of a single brief sentence that is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a complex 12-parameter infrastructure tool. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be internal metadata that wastes space without adding value to the agent's decision-making process.

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 12 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this tool requires substantial documentation that is entirely absent. The description fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the workflow steps following creation (such as needing to upload code or activate a deployment), making it inadequate for the operational complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 12 parameters, the description completely fails to compensate by explaining critical parameters like 'site', 'runtime', 'execute', 'schedule', or 'entrypoint'. It documents nothing about valid runtime values, cron expression formats for scheduling, or the default values (timeout: 15, enabled: true) specified in the schema.

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 states 'Create a new serverless function' which identifies the verb and resource, distinguishing from siblings like appwrite_update_function via the verb 'Create'. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is implementation metadata that adds noise, and the description provides no context about what constitutes a serverless function in Appwrite or when to create versus update existing functions.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as appwrite_update_function or appwrite_execute_function. It fails to mention prerequisites, such as requiring a site to exist first, or the workflow relationship between creating a function and deploying code to it (given the appwrite_activate_deployment sibling exists).

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