directus_update_permission

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 specify whether this performs a partial or full replacement of the permission rule, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or what fields are valid within the 'data' object (which accepts arbitrary properties).

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 appropriately brief (single sentence), but includes the '[UNIFIED]' tag which wastes tokens without aiding comprehension. Otherwise front-loaded with the operative verb.

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?

For a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is dangerously incomplete. It lacks critical safety information (destructive vs. non-destructive behavior) and fails to document the flexible 'data' parameter structure.

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 coverage is 0% with no descriptions for 'site', 'id', or 'data'. The description mentions 'permission rule' which implicitly maps to the 'id' parameter, but provides no guidance on the 'site' parameter's expected format or the structure/content expected in the nested 'data' object.

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 resource ('permission rule'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like directus_create_permission or directus_delete_permission. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata that adds no semantic value for tool 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., directus_create_permission for new rules), nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an existing permission ID or valid site configuration.

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