create_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is FENCED, requires --allow-destructive and confirm:true, and characterizes the write as code/credential write. This is significant safety-relevant behavior. It does not detail all side effects, but the critical guardrails are covered.

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?

Two sentences pack a large amount of high-value information: the core purpose, the discriminating logic, and the critical fencing requirement. The description is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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 22 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain each parameter but relies on the rich schema. It does provide the essential high-level decision tree and safety context. It omits some conditional nuances (e.g., build_pack requirements), but the schema covers individual fields, making this sufficient for a create 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relational semantics beyond individual field docs: it explains that `kind` discriminates among three types, `source` is a sub-discriminator for applications, `engine` is for databases, and `service_type` XOR `docker_compose_raw` (base64) applies to services. This helps the agent correctly combine parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new Coolify resource.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_resource and delete_resource by using 'create' and explaining the resource-kind discriminator. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool is for creation and provides a decision tree via `kind` (application/database/service) with sub-discriminators. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed beyond obvious creation tasks.

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