dokploy_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions actions like 'remove' for deletion but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether backups are deleted permanently), authorization needs, or rate limits. It adequately describes input requirements but lacks behavioral context for operations beyond what is stated.

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 single sentence that packs substantial information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and lists actions efficiently. While a bulleted structure could improve readability, the content is concise with no wasted words.

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?

Given 19 parameters, no output schema, and complex multi-action behavior, the description covers the key use cases (create, update, remove, manual backup) and special scenarios (compose stack). It lacks details on return values or errors, but that is acceptable without an 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?

Schema coverage is low (16%), but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. For example, it explains how to map database types to required IDs (postgresId, mysqlId, etc.) and how to configure compose stack backups. This compensates for the sparse schema 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as 'Manage backups' and lists each action (create, get, update, remove, listFiles, manualBackup) with specific parameter requirements. It distinguishes between backup types (database, compose stack, web server) and provides mapping to service IDs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit instructions for each action, including which parameters to use based on database type and how to handle compose stacks. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool, but the sister tools cover other resource management (e.g., dokploy_database, dokploy_compose), so the context is clear.

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