directus_delete_role

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the critical side effect that users lose their role assignment, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it omits reversibility, permission requirements, and what happens to associated permissions or policies.

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?

Brief two-sentence structure with key information front-loaded. However, the '[UNIFIED]' tag appears to be metadata leakage that wastes space and may confuse. Otherwise efficient.

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 zero annotations, zero schema coverage, and a destructive operation, the description is incomplete. It mentions the cascading user effect but fails to document parameters, prerequisites, or whether the deletion is hard/soft. Should provide significantly more context for safe usage.

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 has 0% description coverage for both 'site' and 'id' parameters. The description fails to compensate by explaining what 'site' refers to (instance identifier?) or what 'id' represents (role UUID vs name), leaving parameters semantically opaque.

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?

Clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('a role'). The side effect mention ('Users with this role will have no role') implicitly distinguishes this from create/update siblings. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise but doesn't obscure the purpose.

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 on when to use this versus directus_update_role or directus_create_role. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions) or warnings about irreversibility beyond the user role side effect.

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