manage_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only hints at destructive operations with '(fenced)' without explaining what that entails. It fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, or behavior of actions like delete. The schema covers the confirm flag, but the description adds little beyond a vague safety signal.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses a compact action list. It is not overly verbose, though the actions could be presented in a more structured way (e.g., categorizing by resource type).

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, 9 actions) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what each action returns, mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a UUID for get), or provide context beyond the action names. The schema compensates for some parameter details but not overall workflow 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured field descriptions already document all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline.

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?

Clearly identifies the resource (Coolify projects and their environments) and enumerates specific actions (list, get, create, update, delete). The verb 'Manage' is generic, but the action list provides specificity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_env or manage_server.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that environment-specific tools (e.g., manage_env) should be used for environment variables, nor any prerequisites or contexts for the various actions.

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