coolify_update_application_secret_manager

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, the deploy-time effect, and version requirements, but omits permissions, reversibility, whether existing secret-manager configuration is replaced, and failure behavior.

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 dense and front-loaded, starting with the write marker and core action, then provider-specific settings guidance. Every clause adds useful information without repetition.

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 nested-settings mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the key provider requirements and version context needed to invoke it correctly. It stops short of explaining prerequisites such as obtaining an integration token or how existing configuration is handled.

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 meaningful provider-specific guidance beyond the schema: Doppler requires project+config, Infisical requires project_id+environment, and Vault requires mount+path.

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 action (link an application to a secret manager) and the outcome ({{vault.KEY}} references resolve on deploy), plus a version constraint. It is clearly distinct from the generic coolify_update_application sibling by scoping the update to secret-manager integration.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is needed: enabling vault-style references at deploy time. It also adds provider-specific settings requirements for Doppler, Infisical, and Vault, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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