Appwrite MCP Server

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 states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the complexity (a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what the tool returns, error handling, or dependencies. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide the broader context needed for safe and effective use, especially for a mutation operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the format of 'key' or clarify the relationship between 'required' and 'default'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Create') and resource ('geometric polygon column'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'tables_db_create_boolean_column' or 'tables_db_create_point_column' by specifying the column type. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the database/table context, which is implied but could be more explicit for full differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing database and table), when not to use it, or how it compares to sibling tools like 'tables_db_update_polygon_column'. The input schema hints at context via parameter descriptions, but the description itself offers no usage instructions.

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