directus_update_file

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While it clarifies that only metadata (not binary content) is updated, it omits critical behavioral details: whether updates are partial or full replacements, required permissions, idempotency characteristics, or return value structure.

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?

Single sentence format is efficient, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix wastes valuable description space without aiding tool selection. The parenthetical field list is 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?

Inadequate for the tool's complexity: three required parameters (including a nested data object with arbitrary properties), zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. Description should have elaborated on parameter relationships and validation constraints.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by listing expected fields within the 'data' object (title, description, tags, folder). However, it fails to explain the other two required parameters ('site' and 'id'), leaving their semantics (site URL vs ID? file ID format?) undocumented.

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 ('Update') and resource ('file metadata') with specific field enumeration (title, description, tags, folder). Distinguishes from sibling tools like directus_delete_file or directus_import_file_url. Deducted one point for the non-descriptive '[UNIFIED]' prefix which adds noise without semantic value.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., directus_import_file_url for new content), prerequisites for the file ID, or when partial metadata updates are appropriate. Agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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