coolify_update_service

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update configuration' without revealing side effects (e.g., service restart, downtime), idempotency, or required permissions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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, which is concise, but it is so minimal that it does not fully earn its place. It front-loads '[WRITE]' as a verb hint, but the overall lack of informative content makes it less effective than a more detailed but still concise description.

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 5 parameters (including a nested object and a raw string field), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what happens after updating, how fields interact, or what the agent should expect in return. The description is inadequate for an agent to use this tool confidently.

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 does not add any additional meaning beyond the parameter names and brief schema descriptions. For example, it doesn't explain how 'custom_fields' works or the relationship between 'docker_compose_raw' and other fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('configuration of a Coolify service'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that update other resources (applications, databases, etc.) by the resource type. However, it does not specify what aspects of configuration are updateable, leaving some ambiguity.

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 like coolify_update_application or coolify_update_database. The description simply states what it does without context on prerequisites, state requirements, or exclusion criteria.

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