control_resource

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

The description warns that stop and restart are destructive and require confirm:true, and notes deployment_uuid returns for applications. However, it mentions an '--allow-destructive' flag not present in the schema and uses 'fenced' without definition, causing confusion. No annotations exist, so the burden is on the description.

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?

Three succinct sentences with front-loaded purpose; no waste except for the unexplained 'fenced' and stray CLI flag. It's concise but not perfectly clean.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return behavior and prerequisites more thoroughly. It explains start/restart return for apps but not for databases/services, and doesn't clarify the 'fenced' qualifier or the allow-destructive flag. It covers the main safety and return aspects but remains incomplete for a 7-param tool.

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 description adds meaning to the action parameter by clarifying which actions are destructive and their confirmation requirement, and adds return-value semantics for applications. The schema already covers uuid, confirm, dry_run, instance, and instant_deploy; the description goes beyond these by explaining action-specific behavior, though the '--allow-destructive' reference is confusing.

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 'Start, stop, or restart a Coolify resource', naming the verb and resource type, and differentiates from sibling tools like delete_resource, deploy, and update_resource. The term 'fenced' is unclear but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy or delete_resource. It only notes destructive actions require confirm, not when to choose this lifecycle tool.

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