coolify_validate_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the operation is a WRITE (though the tag may be part of the overall description, it's helpful) and notes the version requirement. However, it fails to mention what happens upon failure or success, whether the operation is destructive (e.g., if it restarts Docker), what side effects exist, or what permissions are needed. The description partially covers the mutation aspect but is incomplete.

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. It front-loads the purpose and includes a key version constraint. However, the format is somewhat informal with brackets around 'WRITE', and it could be more structured or include more information without becoming verbose. It earns its place but leaves room for more detail.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a successful or failed validation looks like, whether the 'install' parameter has side effects (e.g., restarting Docker as hinted in the schema), or how to interpret the results. For a validation operation, an agent needs to know what outputs to expect and what constitutes success.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('uuid' and 'install'). The description does not add additional context for the parameters—e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between the install flag and the check for Docker prerequisites. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameters, but the description contributes no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema.

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 the tool's purpose clearly: validating a Coolify server by checking SSH connectivity and Docker prerequisites. The verb 'validate' combined with the specific resources ('SSH connectivity and Docker prerequisites') makes the action well-defined. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from the many sibling tools that also start with 'coolify', though the name 'validate_server' is fairly unique.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the WRITE tag indicates it's a write operation, and the version requirement 'v4.2+' is helpful, there are no exclusions, no mention of prerequisites or dependencies, and no comparison to sibling tools like 'coolify_get_server' or 'coolify_update_server'. An agent has no context on whether validation is needed before deployment or other operations.

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