coolify_create_storage

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Path traversal is validated' and 'Subject to operation mode, allowlist, and production guard policies,' plus an audit trail. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent anticipate validation and policy checks. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 exceptionally concise: three short sentences plus an audit tag. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds security/policy context without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 a creation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and limited annotations, the description provides the core purpose and some constraints but lacks operational context: no mention of expected response, required permissions, potential side effects, or when to choose this over S3 storage. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing output schema and sibling differentiation.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds some contextual value by mentioning path traversal validation, which relates to source/destination parameters, but it does not elaborate on parameter-specific formats, defaults, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Create a storage mount') and target ('for a resource'), clearly distinguishing this from S3 storage creation (e.g., coolify_create_s3_storage). It also mentions path traversal validation, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling storage tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like coolify_create_s3_storage. It mentions policy constraints ('operation mode, allowlist, and production guard policies') but these are restrictions, not usage directions. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or reference to alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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