coolify_delete_application_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the cascading effects (cancels deployments, removes containers, volumes and networks). It stops short of stating irreversibility or required permission scope, which for a destructive operation would be the remaining 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?

A single sentence with the destructive marker front-loaded and zero waste; every clause adds factual effect information.

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?

For a 3-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers target and destruction scope adequately. The only missing context is irreversibility and permission requirements, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 three parameters (uuid, pull_request_id, confirm) are already documented, including the confirm flag for destructive operations. The description adds no further meaning about how uuid and pull_request_id combine to identify the target preview, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a preview deployment') and immediately enumerates the cascade. It is unambiguously distinct from siblings like coolify_delete_application or coolify_update_application_preview.

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 '[DESTRUCTIVE]' tag implies caution, but the description never states when this should be used versus alternatives such as deleting/updating the parent application, nor when to avoid it. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explained.

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