Deploy

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

The description discloses key behavioral details beyond the annotations: the operation is queued, it rebuilds and restarts, it returns deployment uuids, and it requires the token's deploy permission. It also explains force behavior. No contradiction with the annotations exists; readOnlyHint=false aligns with the mutating nature of the operation.

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 description is compact and every sentence earns its place: operation, targeting options, force behavior, return value/follow-up, and permission requirement. Important constraints are front-loaded and nothing extraneous is included.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, parameter selection, mutual exclusivity, return value, follow-up monitoring tool, and permission requirement. The agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly, including an appropriate next step via get_deployment.

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 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds useful context for tag ('every resource with that Coolify tag') and clarifies the either/or relationship, but much of the resource/force semantics is already present in the schema. This meets the baseline without needing additional compensation.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Queue a (re)deployment — rebuilds and restarts.' It clearly identifies the operation on applications/services via resource or tag, and the action is distinct from sibling lifecycle tools like restart_service, start_application, and stop_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?

The description gives clear guidance on targeting modes: 'Target either resource ... or tag,' and explains the force flag alternative for cacheless rebuilds. It also directs the agent to get_deployment for follow-up. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool like restart_service, so exclusions are absent but the context is otherwise clear.

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