coolify_start

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the basic safety profile. The description adds the precondition that the resource should be stopped, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like whether starting is asynchronous or what happens if it is already running.

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 consists of a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to read, 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?

Given the low complexity of the tool and the rich schema/annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any additional context about the optional environment_name parameter or the operational implications of starting a resource, like potential downtime or deployment triggers.

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 schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about resource_uuid, resource_type, or environment_name; it just restates the tool's purpose.

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 'Start a stopped resource.' uses a specific verb ('Start') and a clear resource target, making its primary purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like coolify_stop and coolify_restart by the action, though it does not explicitly mention resource types or side effects.

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 phrase 'stopped resource' gives an implied usage context: the tool is for resources that are currently stopped. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as restart or deploy, so the guidance is minimal.

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