Coolify: Cancel deployment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the qualifier 'running', and says nothing about what state a canceled deployment is left in (rollback? partial build artifacts?), whether cancellation is immediate or graceful, or what error surfaces if the deployment cannot be canceled.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The '[UNIFIED]' token occupies prime position without conveying anything actionable.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and fails to meet it. An agent knows what the tool nominally does but not how to identify the target deployment or what to expect after the call.

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 0% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Both required fields are ambiguous in context: 'uuid' could be the deployment UUID or the application UUID, and 'site' is undefined (Coolify instance/URL?). This is a case where the description must compensate for the schema and does not.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a running deployment'), so an agent can immediately tell this is the cancellation counterpart to coolify_deploy. It does not name any sibling or scope boundary, and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is opaque noise rather than clarifying information.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this works on queued vs running vs finished deployments, what happens if the deployment already completed, or which sibling to use instead (e.g. coolify_get_deployment to check status first). The word 'running' is the only usage constraint, and it is not expanded.

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