coolify_delete_service_storage_backup

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

The description labels the tool as '[DESTRUCTIVE]', which is appropriate for a delete operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, and it does flag the destructive nature. However, it does not specify what exactly gets destroyed (e.g., backup schedule, archives, or both), nor does it mention whether the operation is reversible or requires authorization beyond the confirm parameter. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 short sentence that quickly communicates purpose and a key behavioral trait (destructive). It is front-loaded with the '[DESTRUCTIVE]' label. One minor improvement could be moving the label to the end or adding a brief second sentence for when to use, but it remains efficient and to the point.

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 tool has 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks guidance on what happens after deletion (e.g., no response structure) and does not explain the relationship between `uuid` and `storage_uuid`. The sibling tools offer many storage/backup operations, so the description could better clarify the exact scope of deletion, but it is sufficient for basic use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the operation is 'destructive' and that the `confirm` parameter is required to proceed, which is not fully conveyed by the parameter description alone ('Set to true to confirm this destructive operation'). This extra context raises the score to 4.

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—'Delete the backup schedule and archives'—which establishes the verb (delete) and the resource (service storage backup). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like `coolify_delete_service_storage` (which deletes only the storage, not its backups). However, it does not explicitly mention that it is a sibling-related differentiation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a general context for when to use the tool: to delete a backup schedule and its archives. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like `coolify_set_service_storage_backup` or `coolify_run_service_storage_backup`. The tool is destructive, requiring a confirm parameter, but no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., storage must exist) is given.

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