directus_delete_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully warns that the operation 'removes the column and all data,' alerting agents to the destructive nature. However, it lacks details on reversibility, permission requirements, cascading effects on existing items, or what the operation returns.

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 compact with two efficient sentences. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that slightly detracts from an otherwise clean structure, but the core message is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place by stating the action and consequence.

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 destructive operation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the critical data-loss warning but omits parameter documentation, return value structure, and safety checks that would be expected given the high-stakes nature of the 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, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters. While it mentions 'field' and 'collection' in the action statement, it provides no explanation for the 'site' parameter (e.g., whether it's a URL or identifier) or expected formats for any parameter. The semantic mapping is minimal.

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 deletes a field from a collection, specifying both the action (Delete) and resource (field/collection). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'directus_delete_collection', which could confuse agents about whether this deletes the entire collection or just a field within it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'directus_update_field' (to modify rather than remove), nor any prerequisites mentioned (such as requiring admin permissions or emptying the collection first). The only usage hint is the warning about data destruction.

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