Coolify: Update project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say how omitted name/description values are handled (both default to null), whether nullifying a field erases existing data, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded; no waste beyond the bracketed [UNIFIED] tag. Brevity is appropriate, though it comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 four parameters, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is under-specified. An agent cannot tell what site/uuid require or what a successful response contains before committing a destructive change.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that name and description are the mutable fields, leaving 'site' and 'uuid' (both required) completely unexplained in either schema or prose, and it does not clarify the meaning of null defaults for a partial update.

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 (Update) and resource (Coolify project) and narrows scope to name or description. It is clear on its own, though it does nothing to separate itself from sibling updaters such as coolify_update_application or coolify_update_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 guidance on when to choose this over coolify_create_project, coolify_get_project, or the app/database update siblings, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely 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.