coolify_set_database_storage_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly flags the tool as a write/mutation operation via '[WRITE]'. It mentions 'replace' implying idempotent overwrite behavior, but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., whether it overwrites entirely or merges, whether existing backups are affected, or any rate limits or authorization requirements). This is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 useful '[WRITE]' prefix for quick scanning. It is appropriately concise for a 15-param tool with good schema descriptions. No unnecessary words.

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 somewhat underspecified. It does not explain that it creates or replaces a backup schedule for a persistent volume/directory, but omits mention of return behavior (e.g., whether it returns the schedule object or just confirmation). The sibling set includes similar backup tools, increasing the need for more context.

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?

The input schema has 15 parameters, 3 required, with schema description coverage at 60%. The description itself does not mention any parameters, but the schema descriptions are mostly self-documenting (e.g., 'Cron frequency for the backup'). Given the high schema coverage, the description does not need to add much parameter detail. Credit for not cluttering the description with redundant param info.

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 tool's action ('Create or replace a backup schedule') and the resource it targets ('a database persistent volume/directory'). The '[WRITE]' prefix signals mutation, distinguishing it from read tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from other database backup tools like 'coolify_create_database_backup' or 'coolify_run_database_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'coolify_run_database_storage_backup' for immediate execution vs. scheduling). It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring existing storage or database UUIDs, 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.