Coolify: Create redis

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 non-idempotent, destructive write. The description adds nothing on top: it does not explain what instant_deploy triggers, whether provisioning is async, what happens on repeat calls, or what gets torn down. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler prose, which is structurally clean. But it is under-specified rather than concise, and the '[UNIFIED]' tag consumes words without adding meaning.

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 provisioning call with 7 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no return-value or failure-mode information. The description is far too thin for this level of complexity and gives the agent nothing to call it safely or correctly.

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, and the description compensates for none of it. Nothing explains site, project_uuid, server_uuid, environment_name, name, description, or instant_deploy, leaving four required identifiers and the deploy flag completely opaque to the agent.

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 states a specific verb+resource combination: 'Create a Redis database on Coolify.' An agent can identify this as the Redis provisioning tool distinct from coolify_create_mysql/mongodb/postgresql. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained noise and the description offers no differentiation beyond the resource noun, so it stops short of 5.

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 alternatives. Nothing tells the agent that a server, project, and environment must already exist, or when to pick this over coolify_create_service or another database type.

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