coolify_update_application_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a write via '[WRITE]' and 'Replace,' but it does not disclose prerequisites, permanence of the replacement, conflict behavior, or what the caller should expect in response.

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 terse, front-loaded sentences carry the action, version, and the key parameter decision. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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?

The schema covers all parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the destructive-replace behavior and expected return value under-specified. It is adequate for a moderately complex tool, but a richer description would improve call confidence.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds useful parameter-selection context by explicitly mapping domains to regular apps and docker_compose_domains to Compose apps, which goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Replace preview deployment domains.' It also differentiates the regular-app vs Compose-app modes, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like coolify_delete_application_preview or coolify_get_application_preview_logs.

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 gives clear context on when to use domains vs docker_compose_domains based on app type. It does not explicitly enumerate sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the intended usage is clear enough.

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