Create project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a project and returns its UUID, but omits important behavioral details such as side effects, synchronization, uniqueness constraints, or any potential destructive aspects. The description does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it fails to provide substantive transparency.

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 and front-loaded: one sentence for the action and one for the return value. There is no fluff, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 simple create operation with two optional string parameters, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It mentions the return value (compensating for lack of output schema) but does not clarify whether name is required, what default behaviors exist, or how the created project fits into the broader system. Given the simplicity of the tool, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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. However, it does not explain the meaning of the two parameters ('name' and 'description') or their optionality (schema shows 0 required). The description adds no value beyond the schema's bare type declarations, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a new Coolify project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create different resource types (applications, servers, environments). It also specifies the return value (the project UUID), adding precision.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The only implicit hint is that the returned UUID might be useful for subsequent operations, but this is not explicit.

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