directus_delete_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the cascade behavior (operations are deleted with the flow), but fails to mention critical mutation details like whether deletion is permanent, if it affects running flow executions, or required authentication/authorization levels.

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]' metadata tag at the beginning constitutes structural noise that doesn't serve the agent's understanding. Without this tag, it would be a model of conciseness; with it, clarity is slightly compromised.

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 zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is inadequate. While it mentions the cascade delete behavior, it omits parameter documentation, return value structure, error conditions, and recovery options that would be necessary for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both 'site' and 'id' parameters. The description provides no semantic information about what these parameters represent (e.g., that 'id' refers to the flow UUID and 'site' refers to the Directus instance identifier), leaving the agent without guidance on parameter values.

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 specific verb (Delete) and resource (flow), and adds valuable scope context by clarifying that 'operations' (flow steps) are also deleted. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise that doesn't help the agent, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling delete tools like directus_delete_items.

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 provided on when to use this versus alternatives like directus_update_flow or directus_trigger_flow. No mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or warnings about the destructive nature of the operation despite the cascade delete behavior mentioned.

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