Coolify: Create clickhouse

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered structurally. The description adds nothing: a destructive-tagged create is unusual and warrants explanation, and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained jargon. It never says whether creation auto-deploys, what happens on duplicate names, or what a failed call leaves behind.

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, but the bracketed '[UNIFIED]' tag consumes the opening position without conveying any actionable meaning. Efficient, though efficient at saying too little.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 7 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail about permissions or rollback. The description supplies none of the context needed to invoke it correctly, leaving required identifiers like server_uuid and environment_name entirely opaque.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it. It never explains site, project_uuid, server_uuid, environment_name, instant_deploy, or the optional name/description. An agent cannot know what 'site' means here or that instant_deploy triggers a deployment.

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+resource: 'Create a ClickHouse database on Coolify.' The named engine distinguishes it from the mariadb/mongodb/mysql/postgresql/redis siblings without needing their schemas. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling create_* database tools. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the ClickHouse-specific path versus coolify_create_postgresql or coolify_create_service.

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