databases_create_float_attribute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this is a destructive operation (modifies database schema), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise with just two sentences that directly state the purpose and mention optional parameters. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 database schema mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship between attributes and collections/documents, doesn't mention error conditions, and provides no information about what the tool returns. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool use.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'minimum and maximum values can be provided' which corresponds to the 'min' and 'max' parameters, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a float attribute') and resource type, which distinguishes it from other attribute creation tools like boolean or string attributes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'databases_create_float_attribute' vs 'databases_update_float_attribute' or explain the broader context of what an attribute is within Appwrite's database system.

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 like creating other attribute types (boolean, string, etc.) or when to use the update version instead. It mentions optional parameters but doesn't explain use cases for those options or prerequisites for using this tool.

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