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. The '[WRITE]' tag and 'Create or replace' clearly indicate mutation, but the description does not disclose what happens to existing settings on replacement, whether the operation is reversible, or any confirmation/rollback behavior. For a write tool with 15 parameters, more behavioral context would be expected.

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 that front-loads the action and scope. No extraneous words or redundant information. It earns its place by quickly communicating the core functionality.

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's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the core purpose, but lacks details on return values, default behavior for optional parameters, or side effects of replacement. Sibling tools like coolify_run_application_storage_backup exist, so a clearer contrast would improve completeness.

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 60%, meaning many parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description provides a high-level purpose ('backup schedule...') but does not add detail beyond the schema for the remaining 40% of parameters. It adds no new param-level semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Create or replace') and resource ('backup schedule for an application persistent volume/directory'). It also includes a '[WRITE]' tag, which clearly signals that this tool modifies state, distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like coolify_list_application_storages or coolify_run_application_storage_backup.

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 mentions 'Create or replace' which implies idempotent behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., coolify_run_application_storage_backup for immediate execution or coolify_delete_application_storage_backup for removal). There is no guidance on prerequisites or 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.