Create Application — Docker Compose (Empty)

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

Annotations already mark this as a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the deprecation note but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or what happens to existing configurations. The 'reveal' parameter's auditing behavior is documented in the schema but not in the description.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. However, it could be structured better, e.g., separating the deprecation notice into its own sentence.

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 10 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens upon success, error scenarios, or how to interpret responses. The deprecation context is helpful but insufficient for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'raw compose file content' which corresponds to docker_compose_raw. No additional context for other parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('Docker Compose application'), and the method ('by providing the raw compose file content directly'). This distinguishes it from other create_application_* siblings that use Git, Dockerfile, or Docker image sources.

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 mentions deprecation in favor of /services but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like coolify_create_service. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context on when not to use are provided.

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