directus_update_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates mutation via 'Update' but fails to disclose: whether updates are partial (PATCH) or complete replacement, behavior when keys don't exist, atomicity (all-or-nothing vs partial success), or return value structure (critical given no output schema exists).

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 (one sentence), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix wastes valuable descriptive space without aiding agent comprehension. While not verbose, the brevity crosses into under-specification given the complex nested object parameters requiring explanation.

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?

Grossly inadequate for a 5-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema. The description omits critical context: authentication requirements, batch size limits, validation behavior, and success/failure response patterns.

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%, yet the description compensates minimally. It implies 'keys' contains IDs ('by their IDs'), but provides no semantics for 'site' (instance identifier?), 'collection' (table name?), 'data' (payload structure), or 'fields' (return field selection?). Inadequate for the 5-parameter complexity.

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 action ('Update') and scope ('multiple items by their IDs'), distinguishing it from the singular sibling tool 'directus_update_item'. However, it assumes familiarity with Directus 'items' concept and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is implementation noise that doesn't aid selection.

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 'directus_update_item' (singular) or 'directus_create_items'. No mention of prerequisites like existing item validation, partial vs full update semantics, or error handling for invalid IDs.

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