coolify_cancel_deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description does not state whether the operation is reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., if a queued deployment is removed entirely), or whether any confirmation or rollback is possible. The only hint is the "[WRITE]" prefix indicating mutation, but deeper behaviors remain opaque.

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 extremely concise at a single phrase. However, the "[WRITE]" prefix is a useful semantic marker that adds structure without redundancy. Every element earns its place. It could be slightly more informative while remaining concise, but as it stands it is not wasteful.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for basic invocation. However, it fails to explain important context like what happens after cancellation, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or how to verify the result. For a cancellation tool, these details matter for an AI agent's execution confidence.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'uuid', including a description that says "UUID of the deployment to cancel". The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as how to obtain the UUID or any format constraints. Given full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 starts with "[WRITE]" to signal the operation type, and then uses a specific verb and resource: "Cancel a running or queued deployment". This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from other deployment tools like coolify_trigger_deploy or coolify_get_deployment. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from coolify_restart_application (which also affects running state), but the resource is clearly deployments.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the deployment UUID from a tool like coolify_list_deployments) or constraints (e.g., only works on running or queued deployments). Without such guidance, an AI agent may attempt to cancel a deployment that has already completed or fail to understand the required input context.

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