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 behavioral burden. The mention of a 'PATCH body' hints at partial-update semantics, which is useful, but it does not state whether omitted fields are preserved, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, or what the response returns.

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?

A single compact sentence with the write indicator and scope front-loaded, no wasted words. The parenthetical largely echoes required schema fields, keeping it from a 5.

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, the description is thin on mutation semantics and expected behavior. The schema fills in parameter detail, but the behavioral gap on a write operation is only partly addressed.

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 only restates that the body includes storage uuid + type, adding marginal value over the schema; 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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (persistent or file storage for a Coolify service), and the '[WRITE]' tag flags mutation intent. It distinguishes service-level storage from the application/database storage siblings implicitly by scope, though it never names the alternatives.

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 '[WRITE]' prefix and 'Update' verb imply this is for modifying existing storage, distinguishing it from create_service_storage or list_service_storages. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or prerequisite (e.g., storage must already exist).

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