dokploy_application

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

The description proactively discloses critical traits: get returns masked env summary (never values), deploy's first attempt may fail and should be retried immediately, setEnvVars performs read-modify-write with masked confirmation, and getEnvValuesUnsafe is explicitly flagged as unsafe with output going to logs. These go beyond the raw action names and are essential for safe invocation.

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 a dense but efficient reference, structured as action: parameters. It front-loads the purpose and then details each subaction without fluff. While long, it isn't verbose—each phrase is necessary for a 23-action tool. It earns its length, though a more structured format (e.g., bullets) could improve scannability.

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?

The description covers return types and defaults for key actions (get, readLogs, getEnvKeys, setEnvVars, search), and explicitly warns about unsafe operations. However, some actions like cleanQueues, killBuild, and cancelDeployment are only named without behavioral details, and the description doesn't address common error responses or permission requirements. Overall, it is substantial for a tool with no output schema.

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?

With 43 parameters and only 47% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping actions to required parameters (e.g., 'create: name+environmentId', 'move: applicationId+targetEnvironmentId') and adding domain context for fields like sourceType (explains github/git/docker options and limitations). It also clarifies the environment variable formats for saveEnvironment and setEnvVars, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Manage applications' and then enumerates 23 specific actions (create, get, update, move, deploy, etc.) with their required parameters, making the tool's purpose and scope unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dokploy_project or dokploy_compose by focusing on application management.

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 a command list but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_deployment, dokploy_compose). It doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name. There is clear context for each subaction, but no higher-level direction.

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