coolify_delete_application_storage_backup

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

The description labels the tool as '[DESTRUCTIVE]' and states it deletes both schedule and archives, which provides adequate transparency about its irreversible effects. However, no annotations are provided to offer further context (e.g., destructiveHint, idempotency), so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the operation requires confirmation (the 'confirm' parameter is documented in the schema but not mentioned in the description), nor what happens if schedules/archives don't exist.

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 very concise at 12 words, fitting the pattern of a clear one-liner. It includes a '[DESTRUCTIVE]' marker upfront that signals danger, which is helpful. Every word adds value—'backup schedule and archives' provides specificity. The description is efficient without being under-specified.

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 there is no output schema and the tool is destructive with 3 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies what is deleted but does not explain return behavior (e.g., success/error message), whether it is idempotent, or how to confirm the operation (the 'confirm' parameter). It covers the core intent but leaves gaps about the execution flow and edge cases.

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%: all three parameters (uuid, storage_uuid, confirm) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable since the schema is rich and clear. However, the description does not hint that 'confirm' must be true for the operation to proceed, which could be useful context. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Delete the backup schedule and archives for an application storage', which clearly specifies the verb (delete), resource (backup schedule and archives), and scope (application storage). This differentiates it from siblings like 'coolify_delete_application_storage' (which deletes the storage itself) and backup tools for other resource types (database, service). However, it does not explicitly articulate the nuance of deleting both the schedule and existing archives.

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 (when you want to remove backups for an application storage) but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to identify the storage_uuid first via coolify_list_application_storages) nor warnings about irreversible data loss. A sibling like 'coolify_set_application_storage_backup' suggests a counterpart for setting up backups, but the description does not connect these concepts.

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