appwrite_update_user_phone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the update is immediate, if phone number validation occurs, whether verification SMS is sent, or if the old number is preserved in history.

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 and front-loaded, the '[UNIFIED]' tag is cruft that wastes space. Given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, extreme brevity here represents under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

Severely incomplete for a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations. Missing: parameter descriptions, return value documentation, error conditions, and phone number format requirements.

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 but provides no parameter details whatsoever. No explanation of what 'site' refers to (Appwrite project instance?), expected format for 'number' (E.164? Local format?), 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 core operation ('Update user phone number') with a specific verb and resource. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be internal metadata noise that doesn't help distinguish this from sibling tools like appwrite_update_user_email or appwrite_update_user_name.

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 (e.g., appwrite_create_user for new users), prerequisites (user must exist), or whether this triggers phone verification workflows.

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