directus_update_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, error handling, idempotency, or what happens when updating non-existent users. The mutation nature is implied but not explicit.

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 and front-loaded, but the '[UNIFIED]' tag appears to be metadata noise. While not verbose, the extreme brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It lacks critical context about the Directus user data model, available fields, and the distinction between updating arbitrary users versus the current user.

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%, and the description fails to compensate. It does not explain what 'site' refers to, what format 'id' expects, or what fields the 'data' object should contain (despite mentioning 'details' vaguely).

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 states 'Update user details' which identifies the verb and resource, but it is vague and fails to distinguish from sibling tool directus_update_current_user. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without clarifying scope.

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 tool versus directus_update_current_user or other user management tools. No mention of prerequisites like user existence checks or permissions.

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