coolify_create_application_storage

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

The description lacks important behavioral details. Since no annotations are provided, it does not disclose whether this is a destructive or reversible action, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if storage already exists, or if the action can fail. The tag '[WRITE]' is present in the description, hinting at mutation, but this is not formalized. The description does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond what the tool name and schema imply.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action and scope. It uses '[WRITE]' to signal the operation type. At 14 words, it is concise without being cryptic. The structure is optimal for quick scanning, though it could also briefly mention prerequisites without losing conciseness.

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 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides a basic orientation but is not fully complete. Important contextual details are missing: what constitutes a successful invocation (e.g., created storage object details, idempotency, error states), and preconditions (application must exist, user must have appropriate permissions). The sibling tools list includes many similar 'create_storage' tools, so better differentiation would improve completeness. A 3 reflects that while the description pairs well with the schema, an agent would need to infer or test critical behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, so the schema itself is strong. However, the description adds value by summarizing the two storage types ('persistent' or 'file') and hinting at their implications (e.g., 'name' required for persistent, 'content' for file). This helps an agent understand the conditional requirements without parsing all schema details. The description effectively bridges the schema's individual constraints into a coherent usage story.

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 is to add storage (persistent or file mount) to a Coolify application. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like `coolify_delete_application_storage`, `coolify_update_application_storage`, and `coolify_list_application_storages` by using the verb 'Create' and specifying 'add'. However, it doesn't differentiate from `coolify_create_database_storage` or `coolify_create_service_storage` beyond the resource type implied in the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, constraints, or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned. For example, an agent would need to know that the application must exist, or that `uuid` must be from a prior `coolify_get_application` or `coolify_list_applications` call. The description is silent on these practical usage conditions.

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