Coolify: Create application dockerfile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a state-changing, non-idempotent creation. The description adds prerequisite requirements (project_uuid, server_uuid, environment, dockerfile content), which is useful context. It does not say what gets created or return values, but the annotation bar is largely met.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisites; nothing redundant. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is mild noise, and a prerequisite list would read better as a bullet list, but the text is tight.

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?

With 11 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description would need to cover the remaining required 'site' parameter and the optional deployment controls. It documents fewer than half the inputs, so an agent cannot correctly populate the schema on the description alone.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It names only 4 of them (project_uuid, server_uuid, environment, dockerfile) and leaves site, name, domains, ports_exposes, instant_deploy and destination_uuid entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Coolify application from a Dockerfile') and adds the qualifying clause '(without git)', which separates it from the compose, docker_image, private_github_app and public siblings. Sibling alternatives are not named explicitly, but the resource qualifier is enough to distinguish it.

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 parenthetical '(without git)' implies the condition that selects this tool over the git-backed creation siblings, so usage is inferable. There is, however, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (permissions, project/server state) and no named alternative.

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