appwrite_update_collection

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 if the update is partial or full, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what happens to existing data. It only implies mutation through the word 'Update'.

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 short sentence, but contains metadata noise ('[UNIFIED]'). For a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero schema documentation, this is under-specification rather than appropriate 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?

Completely inadequate for the tool's complexity. A mutation operation on Appwrite collections with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema requires substantial behavioral and parameter documentation, none of which is present.

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%, and the description adds no information about the 7 parameters (site, database_id, collection_id, name, permissions, document_security, enabled). It does not explain required vs optional fields or valid formats for the string parameters.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('collection settings'), but is vague about which specific settings can be modified. It does not distinguish from siblings like appwrite_update_document or appwrite_update_database, and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without clarifying scope.

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 tool versus alternatives like creating a new collection or updating documents within the collection. No prerequisites, side effects, or conditions for use are mentioned.

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