coolify_set_environment_variable

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

The description discloses a key behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'DEFAULT DISABLED — COOLIFY_ALLOW_ENV_WRITE must be true' and 'Value is NEVER returned in response.' The redaction note partially duplicates the schema's value description, but the default-disabled gate is new context. The destructive and idempotent hints are already in annotations, so they don't need repeating.

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 long, front-loaded with the purpose, and immediately follows with the critical configuration gate and response behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers the essential bits: purpose, the required feature flag, and the response redaction. However, it omits how this tool relates to the plural sibling, what 'destructive' implies in practice (e.g., overwriting, restarts), and does not explain the `environment_name` guard beyond the schema. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that the value is not returned, which is already in the value property description. The `environment_name` parameter's guard behavior is only explained via 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 states a specific action and target: 'Set an environment variable on a resource.' This is clear and uses a specific verb. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool `coolify_set_environment_variables` (plural), so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level bar for sibling differentiation.

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 provides a critical prerequisite (COOLIFY_ALLOW_ENV_WRITE must be true) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the plural `coolify_set_environment_variables`. It lacks any when/when-not context or comparison to other environment variable tools.

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