coolify_delete_backup_execution

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

The description includes the tag '[DESTRUCTIVE]' but provides no additional context about the destructive nature, such as irreversibility, impact on dependent records, or permission requirements. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose more than what the tag implies. The presence of a 'confirm' parameter hints at a confirmation step, but the description doesn't explain its necessity.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the important information (destructive tag, verb, resource). No filler or redundancy. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured to include usage guidance.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, output schema, or nested objects, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain the confirmation parameter's role, the irreversible nature, or how to correctly obtain the necessary UUIDs. With 4 parameters and one being a required confirmation, this needs more context to guide correct invocation.

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 input schema already describes all parameters with high coverage (100%), so the description doesn't need to add much. However, the schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'UUID of the database') and the description adds nothing about the relationships between parameters (e.g., that execution_uuid belongs to backup_uuid). The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is high and the description provides no extra parameter context.

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 a specific backup execution record' which clearly identifies the action (delete) and the resource (backup execution record). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like coolify_delete_database_backup, the naming and description are clear enough. A score of 4 is appropriate as it lacks explicit differentiation from potentially similar deletion tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or context. It only states the action without mention of required identification details or confirmation step. There is no mention of avoiding use or alternative tools, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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