Appwrite MCP Server

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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation 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 that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens during an update, what values are returned, or how to handle partial updates. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and outcomes.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.

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 target resource ('a table by its unique ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tables_db_create_table' or 'tables_db_delete_table'. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the table can be updated, leaving some ambiguity about the scope of changes.

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 like 'tables_db_update' (which appears to be a more general update tool) or other table-specific operations. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing the table to exist, or any constraints on when updates are permitted.

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