Delete Coolify Project

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

The description warns that deletion cascades to environments and resources, which is beyond what annotations provide (destructiveHint=true). This adds valuable behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false).

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The key action and critical warning are front-loaded. Every word earns 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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation's purpose and risks. It does not describe return values, but for a delete tool this is acceptable. The annotations and schema are rich, so the description is complete enough.

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 extra meaning beyond the schema definitions. The schema already includes detailed documentation for the 'instance' parameter.

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 title 'Delete Coolify Project' and description explicitly state the action and resource. The description also adds that it deletes all environments and resources within the project, which distinguishes it from other delete tools for sub-resources.

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 includes a warning about cascading deletion, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like deleting individual environments or resources. The warning implies careful use, but no direct 'when not to use' or sibling differentiation.

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