directus_create_operation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Create' implies a write operation, there is no disclosure of idempotency, error conditions, whether the operation is immediate or async, or what happens if the flow doesn't exist.

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 and front-loaded, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is metadata noise. While efficient in length, it is underspecified for an 8-parameter mutation tool—conciseness here manifests as under-documentation rather than precision.

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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the single-sentence description is inadequate. It lacks explanation of the Directus automation domain (flows vs operations), valid operation types, and the visual canvas coordinate system implied by position parameters.

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 fails to compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'flow' contextually but does not explain the 'site' identifier, valid 'type' values, the JSON format expected for 'options', or the purpose of coordinate fields (position_x/y).

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 verb (Create) and resource (operation), and contextualizes it with 'in a flow' to distinguish from creating the flow itself (vs sibling directus_create_flow). However, it assumes knowledge of what an 'operation' is in Directus without explaining it is a workflow step/node.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Missing prerequisite information (e.g., that the flow must exist first) and no mention of related tools like directus_list_operations or directus_update_flow for managing existing operations.

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