coolify_update_server

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description omits behavioral details: it doesn't state whether updating is idempotent, whether unsent fields remain unchanged, or if the server must exist. The word 'update' only implies mutation.

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?

A single sentence 'Update an existing server' is maximally concise with zero waste, fitting the action and resource perfectly.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description lacks any mention of return values, prerequisites, or error conditions. For a tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient for the agent to fully understand invocation context.

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% with clear parameter descriptions, so the tool description adds no additional semantic value. A neutral score of 3 is appropriate per the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Update an existing server' clearly states the operation (update) and the resource (server), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like coolify_create_server or coolify_delete_server.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; for instance, it doesn't mention that creation should be done via coolify_create_server or that validation is separate. The agent must infer from the tool name alone.

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