coolify_create_env

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 traits. The description only states 'Create a new environment variable' but does not disclose what happens if a variable with the same key already exists (overwrite, error, or skip), whether the operation is idempotent, or any authorization requirements. The '[WRITE]' tag is redundant with 'Create'. For a mutation tool, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is concise and avoids fluff. However, the '[WRITE]' prefix is redundant because 'Create' already implies a write operation. Still, it is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, earning a 4 rather than a 5 due to the slight redundancy.

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 has 8 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior regarding duplicates, the effect of boolean flags (is_literal, is_preview, etc.) beyond the schema, or what the return value is. The presence of many related env sibling tools (create/update/delete for apps, databases, services) calls for more context to prevent misuse, but the description provides none.

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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., 'key' says 'Variable name (e.g. DATABASE_URL)', 'uuid' says 'UUID of the application'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description does not elevate it further.

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 action ('Create a new environment variable') and the resource ('for a Coolify application'). The '[WRITE]' prefix reinforces the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like coolify_list_envs (list), coolify_update_envs_bulk (update bulk), coolify_delete_env (delete), and coolify_create_database_env (creates for database, not application). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., coolify_create_database_env, coolify_create_service_env). It does not mention that this tool is specifically for application environment variables, nor does it provide prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when it should be chosen over other env creation tools. The agent must infer from the tool name and siblings, which is insufficient.

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