Coolify: Delete server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The line "This cannot be undone!" reinforces irreversibility but adds nothing the annotations do not already imply, and it omits authorization requirements, side effects on hosted resources, and whether dependent applications become orphaned.

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 operation and tailed with the risk warning; nothing is padded or redundant. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but structure and economy are good.

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, non-idempotent mutation with two undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description says far too little — no scope clarification, no prerequisite checks, no indication of what the response confirms. The safety story rests almost entirely on annotations.

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% and both required parameters (site, uuid) are opaque — the description never explains whether uuid is the server's identifier, whether site is a Coolify instance or a project scope, or what format either takes. With two undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it.

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 and resource ("Delete a server from Coolify"), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish this from the other coolify_delete_* siblings (application, database, project, service), nor clarify what constitutes a "server" in Coolify's model.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as coolify_update_server or coolify_validate_server. The only guidance is a consequence warning, not selection criteria.

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