directus_update_settings

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 identifies the operation as an update (mutation) but lacks critical details: whether it performs a partial patch or full replacement, authentication requirements, idempotency, or what the response contains.

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 brief (one sentence), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise that doesn't serve the AI agent. Given the severe lack of schema documentation, the description is actually underspecified rather than efficiently 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?

For a mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to document the 'site' parameter, doesn't explain the nested 'data' object structure, and omits return value information, leaving significant gaps in contextual understanding.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. While it hints at possible content for the 'data' parameter (project name, logo, colors), it completely omits explanation of the required 'site' parameter (e.g., whether it's an ID, URL, or name) and doesn't describe the structure expected in 'data'.

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 tool updates system settings and provides concrete examples (project name, logo, colors). However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is extraneous metadata that doesn't aid understanding, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'directus_get_settings' beyond the implicit verb difference.

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, prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), or whether to use 'directus_get_settings' first to retrieve current values. It fails to establish usage context.

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