coolify_create_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly signals the tool is a write/create operation via '[WRITE]', but does not disclose what happens upon success (e.g., returns a database UUID?), whether creation is synchronous or asynchronous, or what side effects occur (e.g., immediate deploy only if instant_deploy is true). The description adds some context beyond the schema but is insufficient for a tool with 14 parameters.

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 very short (one line), which is concise, but it omits important guidance. The '[WRITE]' prefix is a useful structural cue. However, the description could be slightly longer to include crucial context without being verbose.

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 high complexity (14 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks essential details like return behavior, error scenarios, or how to effectively configure type_config for different database engines. It is adequate for an AI agent with strong schema knowledge but incomplete for autonomous decision-making.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not summarize which parameters are essential, how type_config works, or provide examples of valid combinations, all of which would add value.

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 '[WRITE] Create a new Coolify database', which uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Coolify database'). It clearly identifies this as a write operation. Among siblings like coolify_list_databases (read) and coolify_get_database (read), this stands out as the only create operation for databases, but it lacks explicit distinction from other write siblings like coolify_create_database_backup or coolify_create_database_storage.

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, such as when to use coolify_create_application for a full-stack app, or how to choose between creating a database directly versus using a service. It also omits prerequisites like needing a server_uuid and project_uuid, which are required but not explained in the description.

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