directus_schema_diff

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. While 'diff' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm this, nor does it disclose the output format (JSON patch, SQL statements, etc.), whether the comparison is recursive, or potential performance implications of large schema comparisons.

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 appropriately brief (single sentence), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be internal tagging metadata that adds noise without value. The core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, though extremely minimal for the complexity of the operation.

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 descriptions, no output schema, and a complex nested object input (snapshot), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the diff output contains, how to interpret results, or the relationship to sibling schema management tools in the Directus ecosystem.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It implicitly references the 'snapshot' parameter ('provided snapshot') but completely omits the 'site' parameter with no explanation of what constitutes a site (URL, ID, name?). Insufficient compensation for zero schema documentation.

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 'Get[s] diff between current schema and provided snapshot', specifying the verb (diff), resource (schema), and operation scope (comparing current to provided). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'directus_schema_apply' which is the complementary action.

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, prerequisites (e.g., needing to obtain a snapshot first via directus_get_schema_snapshot), or when to prefer it over directus_schema_apply. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that provides no usage context.

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