coolify_update_application_scheduled_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The '[WRITE]' tag indicates a mutation, but it does not explain what the update entails (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), side effects, idempotency, or required preconditions (e.g., the task must exist). This is insufficient for a write operation with 8 parameters.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It includes a '[WRITE]' tag that is somewhat redundant but not harmful. It could be more informative without becoming verbose, but it earns points for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to use the parameters together. Sibling tools exist but no comparative guidance is provided. The tool is complex enough to warrant more context.

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% with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient for basic parameter understanding. The description does not clarify parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 ('Update a scheduled task') and the resource ('Coolify application'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create' and 'delete' scheduled tasks. However, it does not elaborate on what aspects of the task can be updated, which could be slightly more precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete, or the service scheduled task update). The description simply states the action without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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