appwrite_create_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the creation action but fails to disclose important mutation characteristics like potential locking behavior, time to build index, reversibility, or permission requirements.

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 efficient sentence. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise but the core sentence is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema for a mutation operation, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral warnings, and return value description.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. While it mentions 'collection attributes' which vaguely maps to the attributes parameter, it fails to explain the other 6 parameters (site, database_id, collection_id, key, type, orders) or their relationships.

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 clearly states the tool creates an index on collection attributes and mentions the performance benefit (faster queries). It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling creation tools like appwrite_create_document or appwrite_create_collection by specifying 'index'.

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 only implies usage ('for faster queries') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existing collection), or when not to use it.

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