Coolify: Restart application

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention the expected downtime, what happens to in-flight requests or deployments, whether the operation is safe to retry, or permission requirements.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler beyond the unexplained "[UNIFIED]" tag, which reads as internal jargon rather than meaningful signal. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 destructive operation with two undocumented required parameters, no output schema, and annotations that only flag it as non-idempotent and destructive. Given that complexity, the description is far too thin: it says nothing about effects, downtime, retry behavior, or how to identify the target application.

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 ("site" and "uuid"), so the description bears full responsibility and provides no compensation. "site" is completely opaque — it could be a host, an instance, or a project key — and only the word "application" weakly hints at what "uuid" identifies.

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 text names a specific verb and resource ("Restart a Coolify application"), so the basic operation is identifiable, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool title with an unexplained "[UNIFIED]" prefix. It offers no scope detail that would separate it from coolify_start_application, coolify_stop_application, or coolify_restart_database beyond the word "application".

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 mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as start, stop, or restarting a database/service instead. An agent must infer entirely from the tool name that this is the correct choice for restarting an application rather than a service or database.

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