directus_update_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 but reveals nothing about mutation semantics (destructive vs. safe), whether updates are partial or replace the entire configuration, potential side effects, rate limits, or return value structure. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that conveys no behavioral information.

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?

While the description is brief (one sentence), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix wastes space without adding value, and the single sentence fails to earn its place by providing insufficient actionable information for a 3-parameter mutation tool with complex nested input requirements.

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 required parameters (including a complex nested object with additionalProperties), zero schema documentation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the Directus flow concept, expected data structure, or operational prerequisites necessary for successful invocation.

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 description coverage, the description completely fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters. It provides no semantics for 'site' (instance identifier?), 'id' (flow UUID?), or 'data' (which accepts arbitrary additionalProperties). The agent receives no guidance on required fields within the data object or valid value formats for any parameter.

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 '[UNIFIED] Update flow settings' essentially restates the tool name (directus_update_flow) with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the verb (update) and resource (flow settings), it fails to explain what a Directus 'flow' actually is or distinguish its purpose from siblings like directus_trigger_flow or directus_create_flow beyond the basic CRUD verb.

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 such as directus_create_flow (for new flows) or directus_trigger_flow (for execution). There are no prerequisites mentioned, no warnings about partial vs. full updates, and no indication of required permissions or authentication context.

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