coolify_delete_application_scheduled_task

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

The description tags '[DESTRUCTIVE]' and the confirm parameter's description ('Set to true to confirm this destructive operation') clearly disclose the destructive nature. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately for the safety aspect. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, permission requirements, or side effects (e.g., whether cascading deletions occur).

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 with a useful '[DESTRUCTIVE]' prefix. It is concise and front-loaded with the warning. No extraneous words. Could be slightly expanded (e.g., mentioning the confirm parameter) without losing conciseness, but current form is efficient.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens after deletion (e.g., success/failure response, silent removal), nor does it clarify the relationship between the two required UUIDs. The confirm parameter is mentioned in the schema but not reinforced in the description. More context would help the agent understand the full impact and flow.

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%—all three parameters (uuid, task_uuid, confirm) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema already documents each parameter's purpose.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a scheduled task from a Coolify application'). The verb and resource are specific, and the name differentiates it from sibling tools for different resources (e.g., coolify_delete_application, coolify_delete_service_scheduled_task). However, it does not explicitly distinguish between similar scheduled task delete tools for different parent entities (applications vs. services).

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 choose delete over update or create. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the application must exist) or conditions under which deletion is appropriate. The confirm parameter implies caution, but the description lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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