appwrite_update_user_name

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 mention whether the operation is reversible, idempotent, requires authentication, or affects other user data. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata cruft with no behavioral meaning.

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 brief (one sentence), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix wastes valuable space without aiding tool selection. The structure is front-loaded but sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return value, error conditions, or the relationship between the 'site' parameter and the Appwrite instance being targeted.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate for all three parameters. While 'display name' hints at the 'name' parameter, 'site' and 'user_id' are completely undocumented, leaving the agent uncertain about what constitutes a valid site identifier or user ID format.

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 the specific resource attribute ('user display name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like appwrite_update_user_email or appwrite_update_user_status. However, it doesn't explicitly contextualize this within the Appwrite ecosystem.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the user_id), or side effects. The agent receives no information about necessary permissions or preconditions.

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