dokploy_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses mutation-preview behavior, the authorization/confirmation gate for destructive actions, and that results redact secret fields while logs may still leak application-generated text. What is missing is auth/permission requirements and rate-limit or pagination behavior for an umbrella dispatcher.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, each carrying distinct information (scope, preview, confirmation gate, redaction caveat). The domain enumeration is mildly list-heavy but earns its place by signaling coverage.

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 generic multi-domain dispatcher with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested opaque parameters object, the description covers safety and result handling but not how to construct valid parameters or discover endpoints. Adequate for a cautious agent, but incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains dry_run's preview semantics and gives the non-obvious rule that confirm must equal the endpoint value, but the central `parameters` object stays completely opaque and `endpoint` is only alluded to as 'catalogued' with no naming or format guidance.

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 and resource ('Call a catalogued Dokploy endpoint with validated parameters') and enumerates the resource domains it covers, which lets an agent place it against dokploy_catalog. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the catalog/discovery sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: dry_run previews mutations, and destructive actions require explicit user authorization plus confirm equal to the endpoint. It stops short of stating that dokploy_catalog should be consulted first to obtain a valid endpoint name, so one routing decision is left implicit.

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