coolify_delete_application_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does well by leading with [DESTRUCTIVE] and explicitly naming the side effects: deleting the preview, canceling deployments, and removing containers, volumes, and networks. It could additionally state irreversibility, but the destructive scope is clearly disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence delivers the danger warning first, then the operation and its full side effects. There is no repetitive or filler content.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description explains the resource, required identifiers, and the full scope of destruction. It could mention the response or irreversibility, but the essential information needed to safely invoke it is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, and the confirm flag is sufficiently explained in the schema's own description.

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 concrete operation on a specific resource ('Delete a preview deployment') and enumerates the actions taken: cancel deployments and remove containers, volumes, and networks. This clearly distinguishes it from broader application deletion or a single cancel-deployment operation.

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 implies it should be used when deleting a preview deployment and cleaning up its associated infrastructure, but it does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools such as delete_application or cancel_deployment. Agents can infer scope but are not given direct routing guidance.

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