dokploy_destination

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It notes that 'test' does not persist ('same fields as create (without persisting)'), but lacks details on side effects (e.g., permanence of remove), auth needs, or rate limits.

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 concise, fitting essential info into one sentence. It front-loads the main purpose and uses action:fields structure. Could be improved for readability (e.g., bullet points), but is efficient overall.

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 11 parameters (many conditional) and no output schema, the description covers actions and field requirements adequately. However, it omits return value shapes for list/get and does not describe error scenarios, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 low (27%), but the description adds significant meaning by mapping action-specific required fields, clarifying conditional requirements (e.g., provider?, additionalFlags?). This compensates for the schema's lack of clarity.

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 states 'Manage S3-compatible backup destinations' and enumerates specific actions (list, get, create, update, remove, test), making the tool's purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools like dokploy_backup.

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 field requirements per action (e.g., create needs name+accessKey+bucket+region+endpoint+secretAccessKey), guiding proper usage. However, it does not contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use this tool.

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