Coolify: Delete project

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 covered structurally. The description's one real contribution beyond that is the cascade disclosure that all resources in the project will be removed, which is meaningful for a destructive call. It stops short of anything else behavioral — no auth requirements, no recovery options, no statement about what the call returns.

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 with the destructive scope front-loaded and the cascade warning immediately after — no filler. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is dead weight and slightly degrades scannability, keeping it below a 5.

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?

For a destructive, irreversible tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the definition covers the blast radius but not the operability details. Missing are the meaning of the two required parameters and any confirmation/prerequisite context. Adequate to avoid a false call on the wrong project only if the agent already knows the schema conventions.

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% for both required parameters, so the description carries full burden and does not meet it. It never explains that 'site' identifies the Coolify instance and 'uuid' identifies the project, nor the expected formats. An agent must guess what 'site' means from the schema alone.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a Coolify project') and adds the scope qualifier 'permanently' plus the cascade consequence. The Coolify vendor prefix and verb distinguish it from siblings like coolify_get_project, coolify_update_project, and coolify_create_project, though the definition never routes to them. The '[UNIFIED]' tag is unexplained noise that adds no meaning.

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, no prerequisites (permissions, whether the project must be stopped/empty first), and no mention of alternatives or confirmation steps before an irreversible action. The only implicit signal is the word 'permanently', which a reader must interpret on their own.

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