Set Docker Compose Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it modifies domain mapping and compose location, and optionally clears labels. It also warns about the instance parameter to prevent accidental writes to production. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence lists the configurable fields, and the second explains necessity. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

While the description explains the purpose and timing, it does not describe the output or possible side effects (e.g., whether it triggers a redeployment). Given no output schema, some users might want to know what the response contains. However, idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations mitigate concerns about mutation.

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 provide additional insights beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter. The schema descriptions are detailed, including defaults and the warning for instance. The description merely summarizes the parameter groups without adding new information.

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 tool configures compose-specific fields for a Docker Compose application, listing the three key actions: domain-to-service mapping, compose file location, and optional clearing of labels. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like coolify_create_application_dockercompose and coolify_update_application by specifying it is required after creation for Traefik routing.

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 explicitly says 'This is required after creating a compose app to set up Traefik routing,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer typical usage.

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