appwrite_delete_execution

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. While 'Delete' implies destruction, the description fails to clarify if this is reversible, whether it affects running function instances, or what the response indicates 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?

The description is a single sentence, but includes the '[UNIFIED]' metadata prefix which adds noise without value. Given three undocumented parameters and a destructive operation, the description is inappropriately terse rather than effectively concise.

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?

For a tool with three required parameters, zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence stating the basic action is insufficient. It lacks parameter explanations, return value description, and behavioral constraints.

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 for undocumented parameters (site, function_id, execution_id). The description mentions none of these parameters or their expected formats/semantics.

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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('execution log entry'), distinguishing it from siblings like appwrite_delete_function. However, it does not differentiate from related read operations like appwrite_get_execution or appwrite_list_executions.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the function_id first) or irreversibility warnings for the deletion operation.

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