directus_trigger_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the trigger is synchronous or asynchronous, whether it modifies state, potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. 'Trigger' implies execution but reveals nothing about safety or side effects.

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 (one sentence after the prefix), but the '[UNIFIED]' tag appears to be unexplained metadata that wastes valuable context space without clarifying its significance to 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 three parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides insufficient context for an execution tool. Critical missing details include the expected format of the 'data' payload, what constitutes a valid 'site' identifier, and what the operation returns or affects.

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 with three parameters (site, id, data) completely undocumented. The description adds no semantic meaning to compensate—'site' could be URL, name, or ID; 'id' is ambiguous (flow ID?); 'data' format is unexplained. This forces the AI to guess parameter meanings.

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 basic action ('trigger a flow') but lacks specificity about what a 'flow' represents in the Directus context. While 'manually trigger' distinguishes this from sibling CRUD operations like directus_create_flow, it fails to explain the nature of the execution or its side effects.

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 tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., flow must exist and be active), or required permissions. The description offers no decision-making criteria for tool selection.

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