coolify_execute_scheduled_task

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds the caveat "Subject to operation mode, allowlist, and production guard policies," which is policy context not conveyed by annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens upon execution (e.g., triggers an async run, returns an execution ID) or any side effects. It adds a little value but misses key behavioral details.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes a relevant policy caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted text or redundancy with the schema.

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 is an action with no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a basic trigger operation. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, or subsequent verification steps (e.g., checking task executions via get_task_executions). Since the schema and annotations cover safety and parameters, this is a clear gap but not a fatal one.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (task_uuid, resource_type, resource_uuid) with full coverage (100%). The description adds no additional parameter semantics or relationships. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 purpose: "Execute a scheduled task immediately." This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like coolify_list_scheduled_tasks (which lists) and coolify_create_scheduled_task (which creates). The action is unambiguous and directly differentiated.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to trigger a scheduled task right now) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not compare with similar action-oriented tools like coolify_deploy or coolify_restart, nor does it mention conditions under which it should not be used, aside from vague policy restrictions.

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