appwrite_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It warns that DELETE is irreversible and mentions automatic admin key generation, but lacks details on rate limits, error responses, or authentication requirements beyond root access.

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 concise, using a few sentences in Russian that front-load the purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers target, method, path, query, and body adequately, including the irreversible nature of DELETE. Some details like error handling or response format are missing, but overall sufficient.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. Description adds substantial value by explaining path without '/v1' prefix, providing example query format with JSON-encoded filters, and clarifying target usage. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it is a universal request to Appwrite API with root access, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_project or delete_project which handle specific operations. The verb 'request' and resource 'Appwrite API' are specific.

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?

Explicitly differentiates between target='console' for instance management and target=project ID for project data, providing clear context for when to use each. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings, though it is implied.

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