appwrite_delete_function

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 only delivers minimal information. While it notes the cascading deletion of deployments, it fails to disclose critical safety information: whether the operation is reversible, what happens to execution logs/history, required permissions, or the return value structure for this destructive operation.

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 concise with zero redundant content. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata tagging that doesn't add user-facing value but doesn't significantly detract. However, given the complete lack of schema descriptions and annotations, the extreme brevity leaves critical gaps, preventing a perfect score.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks essential context such as irreversibility warnings, dependency checks (what happens to active executions), or return value documentation that would be necessary for safe agent invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for both required parameters ('site' and 'function_id'). The description fails to compensate for this gap by not explaining what 'site' refers to (Appwrite project/instance identifier), the expected format of 'function_id', or how to obtain these values. The mention of 'function' loosely hints at 'function_id' but provides no semantic detail.

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 specific action (Delete), resource (function), and scope (including all deployments). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool 'appwrite_delete_deployment' by emphasizing the cascading deletion of deployments, making it clear this is for complete removal rather than individual deployment deletion.

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 implied usage guidance through the scope clarification ('and all its deployments'), suggesting this is the appropriate tool for complete function removal versus selective deployment deletion. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., whether the function must be inactive), or explicit mentions of alternatives.

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