coolify_delete_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explicitly calls out that the operation is destructive, permanent, and deletes all environments. The description also aligns with the confirm parameter, which is a common safety pattern. This is strong behavioral transparency for a deletion tool, though it could mention that other resources within the project are also removed.

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, focused sentence with a valuable [DESTRUCTIVE] prefix. It is concise and front-loaded, though the tag could potentially be formatted more clearly (e.g., bold or italic) for readability. No extraneous 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?

There is no output schema, and the description doesn't mention return values or error cases. However, for a deletion tool, the side effect (deletion) is the primary behavior, and the description covers that well. A brief note about what happens on success (e.g., 'Returns success message') would improve completeness.

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% and both parameters have descriptions: uuid as 'UUID of the resource' and confirm as 'Set to true to confirm this destructive operation'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 verb 'delete', the resource 'Coolify project', and the scope 'all its environments'. It also uses the [DESTRUCTIVE] tag to signal severity. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like coolify_create_project or coolify_get_project.

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 includes a '[DESTRUCTIVE]' prefix that implies caution, and the tool has a confirm parameter for safety. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other delete tools (e.g., coolify_delete_environment) or any prerequisites like needing the project's UUID. Usage context is implied but not fully detailed.

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