directus_create_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It confirms this is a creation operation but fails to disclose important behavioral traits: whether role names must be unique, what the default permissions imply (admin_access defaults to false), or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral 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?

While brief, the description suffers from under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. The '[UNIFIED]' tag wastes space without explanation, and the single sentence fails to front-load critical information about required parameters or unique constraints that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It omits essential context about the Directus permission model, the relationship between roles and users/policies, and the meaning of the boolean access flags. For a role management tool in a CMS system, this level of description is insufficient for safe agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 6 parameters, the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It adds absolutely no information about what 'site' represents (instance identifier?), valid 'icon' values, or the implications of 'app_access' vs 'admin_access'. Complete failure to document the parameter contract.

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 states 'Create a new role' which clearly identifies the verb and resource, but it is essentially tautological to the tool name 'directus_create_role'. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'directus_update_role' or 'directus_delete_role', and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be internal metadata that adds no semantic value for tool selection.

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 tool versus 'directus_update_role' (which modifies existing roles) or 'directus_list_roles' (to check if a role exists first). No mention of prerequisites such as admin privileges or the purpose of the 'site' parameter.

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