coolify_create_database_redis

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a mutation operation ('Create') but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites an existing database), required permissions, deployment delays, or what the response looks like. The minimal description fails to provide adequate transparency.

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 short (five words), which is efficient but under-specified. For a tool with 9 parameters and many siblings, this brevity sacrifices essential context. It is not 'appropriately sized'—it is too sparse to be helpful without relying solely on the schema.

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's complexity (9 parameters, 3 required, many sibling tools) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the creation process, return values, or how this tool fits with other database management tools (e.g., 'coolify_get_database', 'coolify_delete_database').

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not add value here.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'Redis database', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'coolify_create_database_mysql' or 'coolify_create_database_postgresql' beyond the database type name, missing an opportunity to specify the context (e.g., within a project/server/environment).

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description fails to indicate when to use this tool versus other database creation tools (e.g., choosing Redis over MySQL), nor does it mention prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives. This leaves the agent without decision-making guidance.

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