directus_delete_permission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a destructive operation ('Delete'), but fails to disclose if the action is reversible, what relationships might be affected, or required authorization level beyond the obvious.

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, it wastes the leading position with '[UNIFIED]' metadata that appears to be an implementation detail rather than useful description. The remaining sentence is efficient but insufficient for the parameter documentation gap.

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 no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description lacks essential context. It omits how to obtain the permission ID, the scope of the deletion, and confirmation requirements.

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 for both 'site' and 'id' parameters, the description completely fails to compensate. It does not clarify that 'site' likely refers to the Directus project/instance identifier or that 'id' is the specific permission rule UUID.

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 the core action (Delete) and resource (permission rule), but provides no context about what a 'permission rule' entails in Directus (access control). The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is metadata noise that adds confusion without clarifying scope.

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 siblings like directus_update_permission (modifying existing rules) or directus_list_permissions (reviewing before deletion). No prerequisites or warnings about irreversibility are mentioned.

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