Coolify: Update application env

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 known without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the value is overwritten irreversibly, whether a missing key errors or is created, or what effect the runtime/buildtime flags have on deployment. For a destructive mutation tool, this is thin.

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 free of padding, so there is no waste. However, at one sentence for an 11-parameter destructive mutation, the terseness crosses from concise into under-specified rather than appropriately sized.

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?

With 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only annotations covering safety, the description does not give an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. Critical facts such as how the is_* flags interact with redeployment, or what happens to an unspecified flag default of null, are absent.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and supplies none of it. The meaning of key/value/site/uuid and the eight is_* flags (is_preview, is_runtime, is_buildtime, is_multiline, is_shown_once, is_literal, comment) is left entirely unexplained, and several are typed as nullable strings where boolean or enumerated semantics are implied.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Update an environment variable for a Coolify application"), which is enough to distinguish it from the create/delete env siblings by verb alone. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix adds no meaning and the target scope (application vs service) is only inferable from the tool name, not the prose.

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 and no mention of the obvious alternatives, even though the sibling set includes coolify_create_application_env, coolify_update_application_envs_bulk, and coolify_update_service_env. An agent must infer that this is the single-variable edit path versus the bulk path or the create path.

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