coolify_update_database_config

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

The description adds PATCH semantics, which tells the agent that unspecified fields remain unchanged and only provided fields are updated. It also mentions the audit log event, which is contextual. Annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness, so the description builds on that.

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: one sentence plus two short fragments. It conveys the action, scope, semantics, and audit trail in under 25 words. 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool, an output schema is absent, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the essential semantics (PATCH) and identifies the target resource, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description's mention of 'CPU/memory limits, name, description' simply echoes the schema. However, PATCH semantics clarifies the optionality of parameters beyond the schema's required field.

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 action ('Update database configuration') and enumerates specific fields (CPU/memory limits, name, description). It distinguishes from sibling update tools by naming 'database configuration' explicitly.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to update database configuration with PATCH semantics (partial updates). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource type is unambiguous.

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