appwrite_update_database

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 fails to deliver. It does not specify idempotency, required permissions, the effect of disabling a database, or error conditions. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise without semantic value.

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 (single sentence) and front-loaded with the action. However, the '[UNIFIED]' tag appears to be implementation metadata rather than descriptive content, slightly diluting the value of the limited space used.

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 mutation operation on a database resource with zero schema documentation, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of the 'enabled' parameter's behavior (boolean logic, side effects), the format of 'site', error scenarios, or return values.

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, the description must compensate for all four parameters but only partially does so. It implicitly documents 'name' and 'enabled' by mentioning them in the purpose statement, but leaves 'site' and 'database_id' completely undocumented despite being required 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 clearly identifies the action ('Update'), resource ('database'), and specific updatable fields ('name or enabled status'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_database, delete_database, or get_database by specifying the partial update nature of the operation.

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, prerequisites (such as needing an existing database), or conditions where updates might fail. There is no mention of related workflows or dependencies.

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