coolify_update_database_storage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes that this is a write operation (via [WRITE]) and a PATCH request, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., data loss risk when changing storage type), authorization requirements, rate limits, or response behavior.

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 that front-loads the operation type and resource. It is concise and contains no filler, though the parenthetical could be integrated more smoothly. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's core action.

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 is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, error scenarios, or how to handle the conditional nature of parameters based on storage type. Given the complexity and the large sibling set, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting that the PATCH body includes 'storage uuid + type', which reinforces the role of two required parameters. However, it does not clarify the conditional nature of parameters (e.g., 'name' and 'host_path' apply only to persistent type) or provide formatting hints.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'persistent or file storage for a Coolify database'. It also specifies the HTTP method (PATCH) and key body components (storage uuid + type), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, list and the general update_database.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_database_storage, delete_database_storage, update_database). The verb 'Update' implies modifying existing storage, but the description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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