coolify_update_service_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. It labels [WRITE] and PATCH, which signals mutability, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or the fact that mount sources cannot be updated (host_path unsupported). This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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?

Single sentence with a front-loaded [WRITE] tag and a parenthetical that clarifies the request shape. No filler; every word contributes.

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?

For an 8-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-liner is insufficient. It omits operational context such as workflow (look up storage via list_service_storages, then update), the fact that host_path cannot be changed, and the distinction from create/delete service storage. The schema covers parameter definitions, but the description fails to integrate them.

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 all 8 parameters are described in the schema. The description merely mentions that the PATCH body includes storage uuid and type, which duplicates the required params without adding format or constraint semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (persistent or file storage), and a target (Coolify service). It also indicates the HTTP method and body anatomy, which differentiates it from create/delete/list siblings. An agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 like create_service_storage, delete_service_storage, or update_application_storage. The name implies 'update existing storage,' but there are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema.

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