coolify_update_application_storage

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must carry the burden. It correctly marks the operation as [WRITE], which is helpful, but it does not disclose details such as whether updates are reversible, what side effects occur, or any auth or rate-limit constraints. The 'host_path' parameter description notes it is unsupported, adding useful context.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and includes a helpful note about the PATCH body, though it could be more structured.

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 has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only the basic purpose. It does not explain which parameters are required for which storage type, nor does it clarify the implications of the 'host_path' unsupported note beyond a single field. An agent might need more guidance to call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema documents every parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the [WRITE] tag and hint about the PATCH body, but does not improve parameter understanding beyond the schema. 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 states that the tool updates a persistent or file storage for a Coolify application, which is clear enough. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling coolify_update_service_storage, but the word 'application' helps distinguish it.

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 usage for updating storage on an application, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives like the service storage tool, leaving the agent to infer which storage type applies.

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