coolify_update_github_app

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. The description labels the operation as '[WRITE]', implying mutation, but fails to disclose permissions required, side effects, reversibility, idempotency, or response behavior. The custom_fields parameter also hints at advanced behavior that is not explained.

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 very brief (one short sentence with a prefix tag) and front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is under-specified for a mutation tool with nested parameters, so conciseness borders on insufficient completeness.

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 3 parameters (including a nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, failure modes, or usage examples. The current text leaves an agent guessing about the outcome and correct usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no further detail about the parameters beyond the schema's own brief descriptions (e.g., 'ID of the GitHub App', 'GitHub App name', 'Additional fields not listed above (advanced)'). It does not clarify how custom_fields interacts with the other parameters, but the schema is self-sufficient.

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 explicitly states '[WRITE] Update a GitHub App integration in Coolify', which clearly indicates the verb (update), resource (GitHub App integration), and system (Coolify). This distinguishes it from siblings like coolify_create_github_app and coolify_delete_github_app, but could be more specific about what aspects of the integration can be updated.

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. Given siblings like coolify_update_application or coolify_update_github_app likely targets different resource types, the description does not clarify or offer any context on prerequisites, success conditions, or when not to use it.

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