appwrite_update_user_email

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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether verification emails are sent), auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the email already exists.

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 brief (one line), but includes '[UNIFIED]' prefix which appears to be metadata/cruft rather than useful information. The actual content is efficiently stated but lacks necessary elaboration given the poor schema coverage.

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?

Given three required parameters with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter semantics, behavioral constraints, or return values necessary for correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters (site, user_id, email). The phrase 'Update user email address' implies the email parameter but provides no semantic information about the 'site' parameter (likely Appwrite project) or 'user_id' format, nor validation rules for the email.

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 action (Update) and resource (user email address), providing specific verb and object. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like appwrite_update_user_name or appwrite_update_user_phone, which also update specific user fields.

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 (e.g., appwrite_create_user), no prerequisites mentioned (such as whether the user must exist), and no warnings about email verification requirements or uniqueness constraints.

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