coolify_deploy_application_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: the [WRITE] marker signals mutation, the version floor and required deploy token scope are spelled out, and the git-vs-docker branch clarifies which parameter set applies. It stops short of saying what happens when the preview does not yet exist versus already exists, or what the call returns.

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?

Two tight sentences with the [WRITE] marker front-loaded and the app-type branching in a compact parenthetical. Every clause carries information, though the parentheticals make it slightly dense to parse in one pass.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: that it deploys, the auth scope, the version requirement, and the app-type parameter split. Remaining gaps (creation-vs-redeploy semantics, response shape) are minor given the rich schema descriptions.

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 the schema already documents uuid, force, commit, git_type, docker_tag, instant_deploy, and the PR fields. The description's mention of git_type/commit for Git apps and docker_tag for Docker Image apps adds a useful at-a-glance summary but largely restates schema text, so 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 (open or redeploy) and resource (preview of a pull request) with the parent application scope implied by the required uuid. The [WRITE] tag and the explicit 'preview' qualifier cleanly separate it from siblings like coolify_trigger_deploy and 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?

Gives clear triggering conditions (opening or redeploying a PR preview) plus prerequisites: Coolify v4.4+ and a token with deploy permission. It does not name alternatives such as coolify_update_application_preview or coolify_get_application_preview, so an agent must infer when not to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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