coolify_update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The [WRITE] prefix suggests mutability, but the description does not state required permissions, side effects, whether fields are overwritten or merged, or the response format. Without annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency for a mutation tool.

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 line, which is concise. However, it is too brief and lacks structure or front-loaded key details. Every sentence should earn its place, and this description misses the opportunity to add value beyond the name. A score of 3 reflects adequate brevity but insufficient content.

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 (all with schema descriptions), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the update behavior (e.g., partial vs full update, what happens to unspecified fields), return value, or any prerequisite steps. An 'update' operation with a required 'uuid' suggests the project must exist, but this is not mentioned. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficient.

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 each parameter (name, uuid, description) has a schema description. However, the description itself adds nothing beyond the schema—it simply says 'Update a Coolify project' with no additional context on parameter semantics. For example, it doesn't clarify that 'uuid' is the identifier, that 'name' and 'description' are optional and what happens if omitted, or any value constraints. With a baseline of 3 due to high coverage, the lack of added value reduces the score.

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 says '[WRITE] Update a Coolify project', which clearly states the verb (update) and resource (Coolify project). The [WRITE] prefix hints at a mutation operation, distinguishing it from list/get tools. However, the description does not differentiate this from the sibling coolify_update_application or other update tools, and the title is null, missing an opportunity for further clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like coolify_update_application, coolify_update_server, coolify_update_database, etc., the description fails to specify the context or prerequisites (e.g., needing a project UUID) for using this tool. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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