appwrite_update_bucket

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether updates are partial (PATCH) or full (PUT), if the operation is atomic, what validation occurs on fields like maximum_file_size, or return behavior on success/failure.

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?

While brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is front-loaded noise that doesn't help tool selection. The single sentence fails to earn its place by omitting critical operational context.

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?

Completely inadequate for a 7-parameter mutation tool. No output schema exists, no annotations exist, and the description doesn't compensate by explaining updatable fields, error conditions, or permissions requirements.

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 description coverage and 7 parameters (3 required), the description provides zero parameter guidance. It doesn't explain the 'site' parameter, expected format for 'allowed_file_extensions', or that 'name' is required while other fields are optional.

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 states the basic action (Update) and resource (bucket settings), but '[UNIFIED]' appears to be metadata noise. It qualifies as 'vague purpose' because while it identifies the operation type, it doesn't clarify scope (which settings?) or distinguish from siblings like appwrite_create_bucket beyond the implicit verb difference.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus appwrite_create_bucket or prerequisites like needing an existing bucket_id. No mention of required parameters or failure modes.

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