Coolify: Start service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, which is unusual for a "start" action and is exactly where the description should add context (e.g. whether state is mutated, what happens if already running, whether the toggle is reversible). The description adds nothing beyond repeating the verb; the mismatch between "Start" and a destructive hint is left entirely unexplained.

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 short sentence with no padding, so it is not verbose, but the unexplained bracketed tag "[UNIFIED]" consumes attention without conveying meaning and the sentence is under-specified rather than economical.

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 mutating tool with two undocumented required parameters, no output schema, and a destructive annotation that begs explanation, the description is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent what a successful start looks like or what state changes to expect.

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?

Both required parameters (site, uuid) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no meaning for either — no format, no example, no indication of what identifies a "site" versus a "uuid", or whether the uuid is the service id. The description fully fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb and resource ("Start a Coolify service"), which is intelligible, but "service" is never disambiguated against siblings like coolify_start_application or coolify_start_database, nor is the unexplained "[UNIFIED]" prefix clarified. An agent cannot tell from the text alone whether "service" is a specific Coolify resource type or an umbrella term.

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 at all: no statement of prerequisites (e.g. service must exist and be stopped), no mention of coolify_restart_service as the alternative for an already-running service, and no exclusions. The agent must infer routing purely from the tool name.

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