manage_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It doesn't mention that delete is destructive, requires confirmation, or that there are dry-run capabilities. The 'fenced' term is unexplained, adding confusion rather than transparency.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It's appropriately short and front-loads the action verbs, making it easy to parse.

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?

This is a complex multi-action tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, yet the description is only 9 words. It doesn't clarify the 'fenced' concept, how operations differ in required fields, or what the tool returns. The minimal description is inadequate for such a complex 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 schema already describes all 13 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, the description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships or operation-specific requirements, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's function with the verbs 'create, update, or delete' targeting a 'Coolify server'. However, the term 'fenced' is ambiguous and no differentiation from sibling tools like create_resource or get_servers is provided, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_resource or get_servers. There's no mention of required parameter combinations for each operation or any prerequisites, leaving usage context fully to the schema and agent inference.

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