dokploy_backup

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state side effects (e.g., 'remove' is destructive), permission requirements, failure modes, or return values. The only behavioral hint is that includeEncryptionKey stores the encryption key, which is more parameter semantics.

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 dense but efficient, using compact colon-separated summaries for each action. Every sentence provides actionable information, though the lack of formatting makes it somewhat hard to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool is complex with 20 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the main actions and key parameter relationships, but misses several parameters, return value details, and operational caveats. It is adequate for basic selection and invocation but not fully complete.

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 only 20%, but the description compensates by explaining action-specific parameter combinations and enum relationships (e.g., databaseType to postgresId/mysqlId/mariadbId, manualBackup backupType variants). However, it leaves some parameters unexplained (search, enabled, keepLatestCount, serverId) and the 'update: backupId+fields' is vague.

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 begins with 'Manage backups' and then enumerates the specific actions (create, get, update, remove, listFiles, manualBackup), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling dokploy_volume_backup, but the action list and parameter requirements are specific enough.

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 maps each action to its required parameters (e.g., 'get: backupId', 'remove: backupId', 'listFiles: destinationId') and gives conditional guidance for compose-stack backups. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over dokploy_volume_backup or other siblings, but it provides practical usage context.

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