create_service

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. While it mentions the type/docker_compose_raw constraint, it doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., does the service start automatically?), what permissions are required, whether this is an idempotent operation, or what error conditions might occur. For a creation tool with significant impact, this is inadequate.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that each earn their place. The first establishes purpose and context, the second provides a critical constraint. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, what happens to the service after creation, or potential side effects. The agent would need to guess about the outcome format and behavioral consequences.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds the important constraint about type/docker_compose_raw mutual exclusivity, which provides context beyond the individual parameter descriptions. However, it doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the well-documented schema.

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 service') and the resource ('on a specified server'), with specific context about services being 'containerized applications that run on your Coolify servers.' It distinguishes from siblings like create_application by focusing specifically on services rather than applications.

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 about when to use this tool (creating containerized services) and includes an important constraint ('Either "type" or "docker_compose_raw" must be provided - you cannot specify both'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use create_service versus create_application or other creation tools in the sibling list.

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