Coolify: Create project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral: it doesn't say whether duplicate names are rejected, what the returned identifier is (needed to chain into application creation), or whether a partially-created project is rolled back on failure.

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, with no wasted text. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained noise, but the body is tight and readable.

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 non-idempotent, destructive-annotated mutation with three entirely undocumented parameters and no output schema. Given that gap, the definition should explain the "site" target and what the call returns so the agent can chain follow-up creation calls; it does neither.

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 three parameters, so the description carries full burden and fails. Critically, the required "site" parameter is never explained—an agent cannot tell whether it is a Coolify instance URL, hostname, or tenant key—and "description" is likewise undefined in purpose.

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 new Coolify project") and adds a one-line scope note that projects group applications, databases, and services. It does not distinguish itself from sibling creation tools such as coolify_create_environment or coolify_create_service, nor explain when a project container is needed versus creating resources directly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never states whether a project must exist before creating applications/databases, or how this relates to coolify_create_environment, leaving the agent to infer the workflow ordering.

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