coolify_set_service_storage_backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says '[WRITE]' and 'Create or replace', which indicates mutation but omits important side effects, such as whether an existing schedule is overwritten, whether backups are triggered immediately, or what happens to prior retention settings. There is no mention of idempotency, failure behavior, or required permissions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. '[WRITE]' immediately communicates the operation class. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and usage detail.

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 complex write operation with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to carry significant context. It only covers the high-level action and leaves out schedule replacement semantics, retention behavior, S3 interactions, return values, and invocation guidance. The context is insufficient for a tool with this many variables.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the input schema, despite 15 parameters and only 60% schema coverage. Six parameters have no schema descriptions, and the description does not compensate by explaining relationships such as save_s3 requiring s3_storage_uuid or how retention parameters interact. The schema remains the only source of parameter semantics.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Create or replace') and names the resource ('service persistent volume/directory'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_service_storage_backup and delete_service_storage_backup. The '[WRITE]' prefix reinforces the operation type. An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from the run/delete siblings.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as coolify_set_application_storage_backup, coolify_set_database_storage_backup, or coolify_run_service_storage_backup. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling context.

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