coolify_delete_service_storage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the '[DESTRUCTIVE]' prefix to signal that this is a destructive operation, which is helpful. The description does not clarify whether removing storage deletes data permanently or what permissions are needed, but given the tool name and the common semantics of deleting storage mounts, a 3 is fair.

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, clear sentence with a critical warning prefix. It contains no filler, is front-loaded with the destructive indicator, and every word earns its place.

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 3 simple parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is adequate. It communicates the core action, the resource type, and the destructive nature. It could optionally clarify that removal is permanent (but that is implied by 'delete'). Given the complexity level, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with well-defined parameters (uuid, confirm, storage_uuid). The description's mention of 'storage mount' and 'Coolify service' adds context by implying that 'uuid' refers to a service UUID and 'storage_uuid' to a storage mount, which is already in the schema but reinforced. The description adds value by linking the action to the parameter usage.

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 (Remove), the resource (persistent or file storage mount), and the target (Coolify service). The sibling tools include coolify_delete_application_storage and coolify_delete_database_storage, so this tool's scope is precisely differentiated by the 'service' context in the description.

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 explicitly marks this as [DESTRUCTIVE] in the text, which provides a strong usage signal. The sibling tools include create and update variants for service storage, offering implied alternatives. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool vs coolify_delete_application_storage (e.g., for a service vs application context), missing a minor clarity opportunity.

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