coolify_create_service_storage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. The [WRITE] marker implies mutation, but the description does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what gets overwritten or destroyed on conflict, whether it requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur (e.g., restarting the service). This is a significant gap for a write tool with no annotations.

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. It is front-loaded with the [WRITE] marker, making the action clear. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly expanded with behavioral details 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 parameter count of 9, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the two storage types differ in behavior, what the response looks like, or error handling. For a service sub-resource creation tool with many similar siblings, more contextual completeness is needed.

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. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the title and brief phrase. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description could provide more context, such as the relationship between parameters (e.g., when is_directory requires fs_path).

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 includes a [WRITE] marker and specifies the verb 'Add' with the resource 'persistent or file storage mount to a Coolify service sub-resource'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like coolify_delete_service_storage, coolify_list_service_storages, and coolify_update_service_storage, but does not explicitly differentiate it from coolify_create_application_storage or coolify_create_database_storage.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other storage creation tools (e.g., for applications vs. databases vs. services). The description does not mention prerequisites such as having a valid service UUID and resource UUID, or when to choose persistent vs. file storage.

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