manage_env

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: list returns a redaction_hint, set upserts via bulk API, delete is destructive and requires confirmation, and dry_run is supported. However, it does not mention side effects beyond deletion, error conditions, or authentication/rate limits, which are common gaps but not required given the tool's purpose.

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 around 70 words, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses action= prefixes to organize behavior. Every sentence adds concrete information without redundancy, achieving high information density in a compact form.

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 10 parameters, the description does well: it explains list's output, set's bulk capability, and delete's requirements. It falls short by not describing return values for set/delete or error behaviors, and it omits that type and uuid are required across all actions (but that is in the schema). Overall, it covers the core operational context.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial relational meaning: it links action=set to key/value and vars, explains env_uuid comes from list, and ties confirm/dry_run to delete. This goes far beyond the schema's static descriptions and helps the agent choose the correct parameters per action.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Manage environment variables for a Coolify resource (application, database, or service).' It then enumerates the three actions (list, set, delete) with specific behavioral details, making it distinct from sibling tools like manage_storage or manage_backups.

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 each action (list for viewing, set for upserting, delete for removal) and specifies prerequisites like env_uuid from list. It also states that delete requires confirm:true. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or mention when not to use this tool, so it misses the explicit exclusion guidance that would earn a 5.

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