coolify_update_application_storage

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only indicates a write operation via '[WRITE]' and mentions the PATCH body, but fails to disclose important details: idempotency, required permissions, side effects on unspecified fields, or behavior when changing the storage type (persistent vs file). The schema implies type-dependent parameters (e.g., content for file, host_path for persistent) but the description omits these conditional dynamics.

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 with a helpful [WRITE] prefix, making it short and front-loaded. However, it is slightly under-specified; adding a brief note about parameter dependencies would improve usability without harming conciseness.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain return values, errors, or conditional logic. It does none of these. For a mutation tool updating storage with type-specific requirements, the lack of pre-/post-conditions makes it incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description 'persistent or file storage' and 'storage uuid + type' add minimal new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not clarify the conditional usage of parameters or provide examples, so it barely meets the baseline.

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 it updates persistent or file storage for a Coolify application, specifying the HTTP method (PATCH) and required identifiers (storage uuid + type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like coolify_create_application_storage and coolify_delete_application_storage.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus create/delete alternatives, nor any prerequisites like needing to list storages first to obtain the uuid. The description only states what the tool does, not in what context it should be chosen over siblings.

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