coolify_update_database_storage

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only marks the operation as [WRITE] and notes the PATCH body fields; it does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, or behavior when the storage does not exist or when fields are omitted.

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. The [WRITE] prefix and the parenthetical method detail each add information without bloating the text.

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 mutation with eight parameters and no annotations or output schema, but the description does not explain how to obtain the storage UUID, type-specific constraints, or what the response will look like. The schema covers parameter names but not the surrounding operational context an agent needs.

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 already documents all eight parameters. The description adds only that storage_uuid and type are part of the PATCH body, which is useful but does not materially go beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action (update), a specific resource (database storage), and scopes it to persistent or file storage, which separates it from sibling update tools for application and service storages. The parenthetical about the PATCH body reinforces that this is an update, not a create or delete.

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?

It is clear the tool is for updating existing database storage, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it instead of create_database_storage, delete_database_storage, or list_database_storages. The intended use is implied by the verb 'update' rather than stated.

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