appwrite_create_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the team_id already exists, or what the function returns upon success.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences with no filler. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained metadata that adds no value, and the extreme brevity is inappropriate given the lack of schema annotations.

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?

Inadequate for a 4-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations. Missing: return value structure, error conditions, permission requirements, and relationship to other team-management operations.

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 coverage, the description must document all 4 parameters but only explains the 'unique()' convention for team_id. It completely omits explanation of the 'site' parameter (is it an ID, URL, or slug?), the 'name' field constraints, and the 'roles' array format.

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 'Create a new team' which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'appwrite_create_team_membership' (which adds members to teams) or clarify what constitutes a 'team' in Appwrite's context.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'appwrite_update_team', prerequisites (e.g., valid site configuration), or sequencing (e.g., that memberships must be added separately via the sibling membership tool).

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