Create project

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

Annotations already declare the tool is non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns the project UUID, which is useful but does not cover other aspects like auth requirements or side effects. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 two short sentences with no redundant text. It is front-loaded with the action and includes only the essential additional return-value information, making it highly concise.

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?

Despite being a relatively simple create tool, the description omits any parameter details or usage caveats. It does mention the return value, but the lack of parameter semantics and absence of guidance on required versus optional fields leaves the description incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'name' or 'description' parameters at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter semantics entirely to inference.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'Coolify project', clearly distinguishing it from sibling create tools like createApplication and createDatabase. Mentioning the return value of a project UUID adds precision about the tool's purpose.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as createEnvironment or updateProject, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites provided. The context is clear only from the title and name, not from explicit usage direction.

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