directus_promote_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It indicates this is a mutating operation ('apply changes to item'), but fails to describe side effects (what happens to the previous main version), reversibility, permission requirements, or the purpose of the mainHash parameter which appears to relate to optimistic locking.

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 efficiently short at one sentence plus a '[UNIFIED]' tag, but the tag appears to be internal metadata rather than helpful context. Given the tool's complexity (3 undocumented parameters, mutation behavior, no output schema), the description is undersized and overloaded with responsibility rather than appropriately concise.

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 mutation tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanations of parameters, the promotion mechanism, conflict resolution (mainHash), return values, or error conditions. The parenthetical '(apply changes to item)' is the only behavioral hint provided.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description completely fails to explain the three parameters: 'site' (which site/collection?), 'id' (version ID or item ID?), and 'mainHash' (hash for concurrency control?). No compensation is provided for the undocumented schema fields.

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 uses specific verbs ('Promote', 'apply') and identifies the resources ('version', 'main', 'item'), clearly indicating this makes a version the primary one. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_version or update_version by specifying the 'promote to main' workflow, though it could clarify what 'main' signifies (e.g., current/active version).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like directus_update_version or directus_create_version. There are no stated prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria for when promotion is appropriate versus other version management operations.

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