coolify_update_database_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. The description says '[WRITE]' but does not disclose whether updates are applied immediately or require a subsequent action, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens to the existing backup schedule (e.g., does it overwrite or merge?). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the [WRITE] tag and action. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without extraneous words. Slightly more context could improve it without becoming 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 the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the relationship between parameters like 'uuid', 'backup_uuid', or the effect of 'enabled'. The tool has many sibling tools for backups, and the description does not help an agent distinguish it from similar update tools. More detail on the expected behavior and dependencies is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself describes each parameter adequately (e.g., 'Cron frequency for backups'), so the description does not need to repeat this. However, the schema includes a 'custom_fields' object for advanced use, which the description could clarify, but does not. Overall, no additional value is added.

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 (update) and the resource (database backup schedule configuration). The [WRITE] tag immediately signals a mutation operation, helping distinguish from read-only tools like coolify_list_database_backups. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like coolify_set_database_storage_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 like coolify_set_database_storage_backup or coolify_create_database_backup. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the database and backup UUIDs) or when not to use it. The required parameters and schema are present, but the description itself offers no usage context.

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