coolify_create_application

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 only says 'create a new application,' but does not disclose that this is a write operation with potential side effects (e.g., creating resources, possibly triggering deploys), nor does it mention any rate limits, authorization requirements, or whether actions are reversible. The description does not contradict annotations (since none exist), but it provides minimal transparency about the operation's behavior.

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 a single line, which is concise, but it is too sparse. It conveys the primary purpose but misses opportunities to outline key aspects of usage, such as referencing the need for prerequisite UUIDs or the variety of source types. The brevity is appropriate for a simple reading, but it lacks the informative structure that would make it truly effective.

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?

The tool has 18 parameters and no output schema, and the description does not elaborate on what the creation involves or what the agent should expect in response (e.g., the created application's UUID). The schema documents parameters well, but the description provides no additional context about how the creation process works, potential side effects, or post-creation steps (like deployment). Given the tool's complexity, the description is insufficiently complete to guide an agent effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 18 parameters, meaning every parameter has a description. The overall description only mentions 'various sources,' which adds little beyond the schema. Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides. No extra context is given for complex parameters like custom_fields or the conditional requirements based on source_type.

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's purpose: to create a new Coolify application, using the [WRITE] marker to indicate a write operation. It mentions 'from various sources,' which hints at the multiple source types, providing some differentiation from sibling tools like coolify_list_applications or coolify_update_application. However, it does not explicitly list the source types in the description, requiring the agent to inspect the schema for specifics.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., coolify_create_database for databases, or coolify_update_application for modifications). It also does not mention prerequisites such as needing an existing project, server, or environment UUIDs. The absence of any usage context beyond the basic 'create' operation fails to help the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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