create_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether this triggers a deployment, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, error handling, or what the return value contains. The Git repository mention hints at source, but lacks depth on behavioral impact.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds useful context about applications without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., deployment consequences, error cases), usage prerequisites, and output expectations. The agent must rely heavily on schema and trial-and-error, which is inadequate for a creation operation.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general context of Git repositories, which is implied by the git_repository parameter. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create a new application') and resource ('in Coolify'), with additional context about what applications are ('deployable units that can be sourced from Git repositories'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_environment or create_project by focusing specifically on applications, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project or server first), when to choose this over other creation tools, or any constraints like permissions or quotas. The agent must infer usage from parameter requirements alone.

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