appwrite_update_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to indicate whether this is a partial update (only changing provided fields) or full replacement, whether it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the response format is. The mutation nature is implied by 'Update' but not explicitly confirmed.

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 (one sentence), it violates front-loading principles: the '[UNIFIED]' tag is implementation metadata that wastes the most valuable description real estate. The remaining text 'Update function configuration' is tautological restatement of the tool name, making the entire description low-information.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits: authentication context, return value structure, error scenarios, partial vs full update semantics, and the specific Appwrite API version or endpoint behavior. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without guessing parameter formats.

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 across 9 parameters, the description must compensate by explaining critical parameters like 'site' (endpoint/project identifier?), 'execute' (permission syntax?), 'events' (format?), and 'function_id' (format requirements?). It provides zero parameter guidance, leaving all 9 parameters semantically undefined.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('function configuration'), confirming this modifies an existing function's settings rather than creating or executing it. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like appwrite_create_function or clarify what 'function' means in this context (Appwrite cloud function). The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is metadata noise that doesn't help selection.

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 tool versus alternatives like appwrite_create_function (for new functions) or appwrite_activate_deployment (for updating code). No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requiring function_id from a previous create or list call).

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