project

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint: true. The description adds behavioral context: safety notes for destructive operations ('confirm'), optional instance, and reveal opt-in. It also notes that initial_environment requires user input per D-09/D-10, which is non-obvious behavior not captured by annotations.

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 concise (3 lines) and well-structured: first line states purpose, second line action signatures, third line safety/behavior notes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, 6 actions, output schema exists), the description covers all crucial aspects: action signatures, parameter semantics, safety, optional instance, reveal behavior, and output format options. It leaves no major gaps for an AI agent to understand usage.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by grouping parameters per action (e.g., 'create(name, initial_environment?)') and providing semantic guidance like 'ask user for production vs custom per D-09/D-10' for initial_environment, which goes beyond the schema description.

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 clearly states 'Project CRUD for Coolify organizational containers' and enumerates specific actions (list, get, create, update, delete, delete_preview), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like 'system' or '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 lists actions and safety notes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied through action names and parameter hints (e.g., 'confirm for destructive ops'), but no direct comparison to siblings.

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