create_server

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 mentions authentication requirements, which is useful, but fails to describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), potential side effects, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., server state). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new server') and includes essential prerequisites. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

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 complexity of a server creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns, error conditions, or detailed behavioral context. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, this is inadequate.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning SSH access and private keys, which relate to parameters like 'private_key_uuid' and 'user,' but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new server in Coolify'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_application' or 'create_project' by specifying server creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'validate_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?

The description implies usage context through 'Requires SSH access details and a private key for authentication,' suggesting prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_server' or 'list_servers,' nor does it provide exclusions or clear alternatives.

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