directus_create_comment

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description discloses zero behavioral traits. It fails to state whether this is a destructive operation, what happens if the item doesn't exist, whether comments are public or private, rate limits, or what the return value indicates.

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 brief at seven words, but front-loads a '[UNIFIED]' tag that wastes precious space. While efficient, it lacks substance for a tool with four required parameters.

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 four required parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the Directus-specific concepts (collections, items) necessary for successful invocation.

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 partially compensates by mentioning 'comment' and 'item', but leaves 'site' and 'collection' completely unexplained. No guidance on valid formats (e.g., whether item is a UUID) or that collection refers to the Directus content type name.

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?

States 'Create a comment on an item' identifying the verb and resource, but 'item' is ambiguous without Directus domain knowledge (refers to a record within a collection). The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is metadata noise that doesn't help distinguish from siblings like directus_create_item or directus_create_user.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like directus_list_comments or directus_delete_comment. No mention of prerequisites such as item existence, collection permissions, or authentication requirements.

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