delete_resource

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

The description explicitly discloses the permanent, irreversible nature of the delete and the mandatory confirm parameter, which is critical for a destructive operation. It also mentions the --allow-destructive flag, indicating an extra safety gate. However, it does not elaborate on associated data loss or the exact scope of deletion, and it omits mention of dry_run's preview capability, leaving some behavioral aspects to the schema.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and highlights the critical confirm requirement. It contains no filler and every word adds value, making it appropriately 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, the description adequately warns about permanence and the confirmation requirement, which are the most critical operational details. The schema covers parameter enumerations and dry_run behavior, so the description complements rather than duplicates it. However, the lack of any mention of return behavior or the meaning of `uuid` leaves minor gaps, but overall it is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 schema describes confirm, dry_run, and instance, but type and uuid lack descriptions, giving 60% coverage. The tool description reinforces confirm's necessity but adds no new meaning for type, uuid, or dry_run, and introduces an external flag not present in the schema. Thus, it does not significantly compensate for the undocumented 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 clearly identifies the tool's function with the verb 'Delete' and specifies the target as 'a Coolify resource,' emphasizing permanence. The action is distinct from sibling tools like create_resource, update_resource, and control_resource, so the purpose is 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 provides a key usage requirement—confirm:true and the --allow-destructive flag—which is essential for executing a destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like control_resource for temporary changes, nor does it mention dry_run as a safe preview option. The guidance is limited to prerequisites, not broader usage context.

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