coolify_update_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Update an existing project', revealing nothing about whether fields are merged or overwritten, required permissions, error handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 but overly minimal. It lacks necessary details for a mutation tool, but it is front-loaded with the key action. It is not well-structured to convey additional context.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should offer more context about behavior, return values, or error states. It is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions; it does not clarify how parameters interact or any constraints (e.g., optionality of name/description).

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 'Update an existing project', which is a specific verb+resource. Among sibling tools, this distinguishes itself from create, delete, get, and list project tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts where update is appropriate. It simply states what it does without any usage context.

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