coolify_set_service_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create or replace' and '[WRITE]', but does not explain what happens when a schedule already exists (does it overwrite?), whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects (e.g., does it delete existing backups?). Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 sentence: '[WRITE] Create or replace a backup schedule for a service persistent volume/directory'. It is efficient and front-loaded with the action. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning the need for uuid and storage_uuid) without being verbose.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., storage must exist), or how to use retention parameters. For a complex backup schedule tool, this is inadequate.

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%, with 6 out of 15 parameters lacking descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., save_s3 and s3_storage_uuid) or provide examples. With moderate schema coverage, the description adds no extra value, so baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Create or replace'), the resource ('backup schedule'), and the scope ('for a service persistent volume/directory'). The [WRITE] prefix signals it's a mutation. Among siblings, it unambiguously targets service storage backups, differentiating from database/application storage backup tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `coolify_run_service_storage_backup` (run a backup) or `coolify_delete_service_storage_backup` (delete a schedule). No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., storage must exist). The description simply states the action without context for choosing it over other storage backup tools.

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