directus_update_field

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only implies mutation through the word 'Update' but discloses nothing about reversibility, side effects on existing data, required permissions, or the distinction between meta (Directus UI settings) and schema (database structure) modifications.

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?

Extremely brief (3 words), which prevents verbosity but also provides no actionable information. The '[UNIFIED]' tag wastes precious description real estate on implementation metadata rather than semantic guidance.

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?

Completely inadequate for a 5-parameter configuration tool with complex domain concepts. No output schema means the description should explain return values or success indicators. Critical Directus-specific concepts (meta vs. schema bifurcation) are entirely undocumented.

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. Description fails to explain critical parameters: no clarification of what 'site' refers to (instance identifier?), the difference between 'meta' and 'schema' parameters (crucial in Directus), or expected format for the string-typed meta/schema fields (likely JSON strings).

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?

States the basic action ('Update field configuration') but is overly generic. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is implementation noise that adds no semantic value. Fails to distinguish from sibling tools like directus_create_field or clarify what constitutes a 'field' in this context (database column vs. form field).

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus directus_create_field, directus_get_field, or when updates require specific prerequisites. No mention of idempotency, partial vs. full updates, or validation requirements.

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