appwrite_create_integer_attribute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to deliver. It does not state whether creation is idempotent, what happens if the attribute key already exists, whether existing documents are affected, or if specific permissions are required.

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 extremely terse (one sentence), which is efficient, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without value. For a tool with 9 parameters and complex database schema implications, this brevity constitutes under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. A mutation tool affecting database schema should disclose side effects, required prior state (collection must exist), and parameter relationships.

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, which it does not. While parameter names like 'database_id' and 'collection_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, ambiguous terms like 'site' and 'key' (vs 'name') are unexplained, as are the optional constraints ('min', 'max', 'array').

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource clearly ('integer attribute in a collection'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'appwrite_create_string_attribute' and 'appwrite_create_boolean_attribute' by specifying the data type. However, it could be improved by clarifying this is for Appwrite database collections.

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, prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing collection), or error conditions. It does not mention the sibling attribute creation tools or when integer attributes are preferred over other types.

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