Update application

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: `extra` fields are validated against the OpenAPI schema, implying invalid fields will be rejected. It also clarifies the UUID-based targeting and the existence of fields beyond the common ones, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then elaborates on the `extra` mechanism. No wasted words; every sentence provides necessary context.

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 an update tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description, combined with the schema and annotations, gives adequate context. It covers the key points: UUID identification, common vs. extra fields, and validation. The lack of an output schema lowers the burden, and there's no obvious missing information that would prevent correct use.

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?

With only 8% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the structure: common fields are exposed directly, and any other Coolify field goes into `extra` with validation. This adds meaning to the `extra` parameter and clarifies the overall parameter strategy, even though individual field names are left self-explanatory.

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's function: 'Update an application's configuration by UUID.' It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (application's configuration), distinguishing it from sibling tools like createApplication, deleteApplication, and startApplication. The mention of 'common fields' and 'extra' further clarifies the scope.

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 implies usage context: it's for updating existing applications by UUID, and it explains how to handle common vs. extra fields. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., createApplication for new apps), and there are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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