coolify_run_application_storage_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'run an on-demand backup', which implies mutation but doesn't explain side effects, idempotency, asynchronicity, or authorization requirements. The '[WRITE]' prefix is not part of the description and is not a substitute for behavioral transparency.

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 that front-loads the action type ('[WRITE]'). It is efficient and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could include more context without being verbose, so not a perfect 5.

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 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the backup process, what happens after invocation, and any success indicators. It fails to explain return values, potential errors, or the effect of the backup. This is inadequate for a potentially impactful operation.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and their schema descriptions. It does not explain how to obtain the UUIDs or what 'storage' refers to. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Run an on-demand backup for an application storage'. The verb 'run' and resource 'application storage backup' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'coolify_set_application_storage_backup' (which likely schedules backups) and 'coolify_run_database_storage_backup' (database vs application), though it doesn't explicitly call out the difference.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., set vs run, or database vs application). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the application to be running or having a storage configured. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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