coolify_set_application_storage_backup

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 does disclose that this is a mutating operation ('[WRITE]') and that an existing schedule may be replaced. However, it does not explain prerequisites, idempotency, retention side effects, or consequences of replacement beyond the schedule itself.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the [WRITE] signal and the main verb. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives only a high-level purpose. It omits behavioral context around replacement, default enabled behavior, local/S3 retention semantics, and any indication of what the API returns, leaving an agent to rely on sparse schema descriptions and sibling-name inference.

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 only 60%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. Six retention-related parameters are left undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description does not clarify the required parameters or their relationships.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create or replace a backup schedule for an application persistent volume/directory.' This clearly distinguishes it from the run/delete backup tools and from the database/service storage backup variants in the sibling list.

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 when to use the tool: to set or replace a schedule, as opposed to running a backup now (coolify_run_application_storage_backup) or deleting one (coolify_delete_application_storage_backup). However, it does not explicitly name these alternatives or state when not to use it.

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