coolify_create_service_scheduled_task

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full responsibility. It accurately indicates a write operation via '[WRITE]' and 'Create'. However, it does not disclose what happens upon successful creation (e.g., return value), whether duplicate tasks are rejected, or if specific authorization is needed. The behavioral context is basic but not misleading.

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 concise line, which is efficient for a simple mutation. However, it lacks structure—no introduction, no sections for parameters or return values. The '[WRITE]' prefix is a useful signal but is inconsistent with sibling tools that do not use such prefixes. At 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse to be fully 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 description is under-specified given that there are 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain the creation process, success responses, error cases, or required permissions. A user would need to inspect the schema and trial-and-error to understand behavior. For a tool of this complexity, the description should provide more context.

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 all 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. However, the tool description itself adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'frequency' expects a cron expression, or the interplay between 'enabled' and 'timeout'). With no output schema, the description misses an opportunity to clarify parameter semantics.

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 'Create a scheduled task for a Coolify service', specifying the verb (create) and the resource (scheduled task). The '[WRITE]' prefix signals the mutation nature. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_service_scheduled_tasks' and 'delete_service_scheduled_task', it could more explicitly contrast with 'update_service_scheduled_task' to justify when to create vs update.

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 implicitly indicates this is for creating new tasks, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. updating an existing task, what prerequisites are needed (e.g., service must exist), or conditions under which creation would fail. There is no explicit mention of alternatives.

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