coolify_create_application

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

The annotations already convey mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. The description adds a policy caveat ('Subject to operation mode, allowlist, and production guard policies'), which is useful, but it is vague and does not explain exact failure conditions, side effects, or return behavior.

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 followed by a concise policy caveat. Every word 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?

For a 10-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain relationships like source_type to repository_url/build_pack, and the policy caveat is vague. The rich schema helps, but the description alone leaves key operational details implicit.

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% and all 10 parameters include descriptions, so the description does not need to compensate. The text adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('a new application') plus the scoping context ('in a project environment'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like coolify_create_service and coolify_create_database.

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?

It clearly states the intended use: creating an application within a project environment. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., for services or databases), though the resource type makes that implicit.

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