Coolify: Start database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and notably destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent mutating call. The description adds nothing to that picture: it does not explain why a 'start' is flagged destructive, what happens if the database is already running, whether dependent services are affected, or what the response contains.

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 short and front-loaded, so it is not bloated. However, the '[UNIFIED]' tag is unexplained noise, and brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 fully undocumented required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations explaining consequences, the description should carry much more. There is no statement of effect, no failure modes, and no return-value hint, leaving the agent guessing before an irreversible-looking call.

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 undocumented in both the schema and the description. The word 'database' only faintly hints that uuid identifies the target database; nothing explains what 'site' means or what format either identifier takes.

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 'Start a Coolify database' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, adding nothing except the unexplained '[UNIFIED]' prefix. An agent can infer the verb and resource only because the name repeats them; the description itself offers no scope, no target detail, and no distinction from start_application or start_service beyond the noun 'database'.

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 (e.g. the database must be stopped or provisioned), and no reference to alternatives such as coolify_restart_database or coolify_stop_database. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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