directus_create_relation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions 'foreign key' hinting at database constraints, but fails to disclose mutation safety, idempotency, whether existing data is validated, locking behavior, or what happens on constraint violations.

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 sentence and brief, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is structural noise. Given the complexity of database relation creation and zero schema documentation, the description is actually underspecified rather than appropriately concise.

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 schema-manipulation tool with 6 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is dangerously incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, return value documentation, and side-effect warnings necessary for safe 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 0% and the description mentions none of the 6 parameters (site, collection, field, related_collection, meta, schema). Critical parameters like 'meta' and 'schema' (which accept string/null) are completely opaque, leaving the agent unable to construct valid inputs beyond guessing.

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 tool creates a 'relation (foreign key) between collections' which is specific and actionable. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage that doesn't add value, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish when to use this versus directus_create_field for relational fields.

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, prerequisites (e.g., collections must exist), or constraints. The agent is given no signals about error conditions or validation requirements for creating foreign keys.

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