service

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

The description discloses critical behaviors beyond the minimal annotations (only openWorldHint). It details masking of secrets, confirmation requirements, compose vs one-click creation, upgrade paths, and version-specific defaults (e.g., docker_cleanup false for stop on Coolify 4.1.x). No contradictions with 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the main actions then detailing specifics. It could be more concise with bullet points, but every sentence adds necessary information for such a complex tool. Acceptable conciseness given the breadth.

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 (over 15 actions, many parameters) and the presence of an output schema the description is remarkably complete. It covers safety considerations, action-specific constraints, domain conflict recovery, and environment variable handling. No obvious gaps.

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 already documents all parameters. However, the description adds value by summarizing key parameter interactions (e.g., 'create: one-click type XOR compose/compose_file', 'delete requires confirm: true with safe defaults'). This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool is for 'Service CRUD, lifecycle, and environment-variable actions' and enumerates specific actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that listing is done via the resource tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action, including required flags like 'confirm:true' for destructive operations, and rules such as 'pass reveal:true only after asking the human'. It also clarifies that local .env sync is application-only, helping the agent avoid misuse.

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