dokploy_database

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 discloses return behavior ('get: ... masked env summary — never values'), state change semantics ('saveEnvironment: env (full replace)'), and safety ('getEnvValuesUnsafe: UNSAFE escape hatch'). It also notes limitations like 'search ... not supported for libsql'.

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?

Although long, the description is dense and efficiently organized by action with colons and semicolons. Every sentence carries operational detail, and there is no redundant or promotional language.

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 is largely complete for a tool with 31 params and 17 actions: it groups parameters by action and engine and explains return and unsafe behaviors. However, a few schema parameters (cpuLimit, memoryLimit, serverId, command) are not explained anywhere, leaving gaps for update/create scenarios. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, these omissions prevent a perfect score.

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 only 45%, but the description compensates by explaining which parameters are required per action/engine (e.g., 'postgres/mysql/mariadb: REQUIRE databaseName+databaseUser', 'mongo: REQUIRES databaseUser (databaseName not used)') and clarifies the meaning of fields like set/unset for setEnvVars and q/limit/offset for search.

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?

Description opens with 'Manage databases (postgres/mysql/mariadb/mongo/redis/libsql)', specifying the verb and resource. The 17 enumerated actions (create, get, update, move, start, stop, etc.) clarify the scope and distinguish it from sibling resource management tools like dokploy_application or dokploy_compose.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (any database management operation) and breaks down per-action and per-engine requirements. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., when managing applications or deployments), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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