coolify_update_service_storage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral info. It correctly flags this as a write operation with '[WRITE]', and mentions it uses PATCH HTTP method implicitly. However, it does not specify if updates are destructive or partial, auth requirements, or what happens to omitted fields. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 indication and states the purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words. Could arguably be more structured but score reflects good brevity.

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 parameter count (8) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete for a simple update operation but lacks details on response format, partial vs full update semantics, and conditional parameter usage. The sibling list doesn't help differentiate usage. Score reflects adequacy with gaps.

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 8 parameters well. The description adds context that the body includes storage_uuid and type, reinforcing the key requirements. However, it doesn't clarify conditional relationships (e.g., content only for file type) beyond schema enum/descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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's a write operation to update storage for a Coolify service, and specifies it supports persistent or file storage. It distinguishes from sibling tools like coolify_create_service_storage and coolify_delete_service_storage, but could be more explicit about targeting an existing storage (versus creating or deleting).

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 is for updating existing storage, but provides no when-to-use guidance vs alternatives like coolify_create_service_storage or coolify_update_application_storage. No explicit context for when not to use or prerequisites.

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