coolify_update_backup_config

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: PATCH semantics (only provided fields updated) and cron validation. Combined with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the agent understands this is a non-destructive partial update. It does not mention auth requirements or response format, but annotations cover the core safety profile.

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?

Two concise sentences: first identifies the action and resource, second adds essential PATCH semantics and validation behavior. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and beneficial annotations, the description is sufficient for selection and invocation. It could mention return value since no output schema exists, but the PATCH semantics and validation note provide enough operational context.

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?

Input schema already covers all 5 parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying that only provided fields are updated (applying to optional params) and that schedule is validated as a cron expression, which goes beyond the raw property descriptions.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Update' and object 'backup configuration for a database', which is specific and distinguishable from the sibling create tool (coolify_create_backup_config). The scope is immediately understandable.

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?

PATCH semantics explicitly indicate usage for partial updates of an existing config, and the validation note warns about cron format. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_backup_config for new configurations or list_backup_executions for monitoring, leaving the when-not guidance implicit.

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