coolify_update_instance_email_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that this is a write mutation, names the version, states the authorization requirement, and explains that passing null clears a field. It does not describe the response format or whether omitted fields are preserved, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, tightly packed sentence with no filler. The write indicator is front-loaded, followed by the resource, version, permission requirement, and null behavior, each earning its place.

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 12-parameter update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, permissions, and null semantics, which are the most critical parts. However, it does not clarify whether omitted fields are left unchanged or how the API responds, leaving an agent to infer the update semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it groups parameters into SMTP/Resend settings and explains the null-clears-field rule. The 12 parameter names are largely self-explanatory, but details like smtp_timeout units and partial-update behavior are left unspecified, making this adequate but not rich.

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 names a specific action ('Update'), a specific resource ('instance-wide SMTP/Resend settings'), and clearly marks it as a write operation with '[WRITE]'. The scope is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings like coolify_get_instance_email_settings.

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 invocation context by stating the required permission level: root-team admin/owner token with write:sensitive ability. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to the read alternative, but the write-versus-read distinction is evident from the description and sibling names.

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