dokploy_destination

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

The description discloses that the 'test' action creates without persisting, which is a valuable behavioral trait. It also implies the CRUD nature of other actions. However, it does not discuss side effects (e.g., does removing a destination affect existing backups?), authorization needs, or rate limits. Given no annotations, the burden is higher, and the description provides only moderate transparency.

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 extremely concise, using compact notation to convey action-specific parameters. Every part adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 the complexity of 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers most necessary context for understanding how to use each action. It explains the test action's dry-run behavior and lists required fields. The missing serverId parameter and lack of return value explanation are minor gaps, but overall it provides sufficient guidance for an AI 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?

With schema coverage at 27%, the description compensates by explaining which parameters are needed for each action and their roles (e.g., 'name+accessKey+bucket+region+endpoint+secretAccessKey' for create, 'provider?' as optional rclone hint, 'additionalFlags?' as rclone flags). However, 'serverId' appears in the schema but is not mentioned in the description, leaving a gap.

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 it manages S3-compatible backup destinations and enumerates specific actions (list, get, create, update, remove, test). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dokploy_backup, which likely handles backup operations rather than destination configuration. However, it could be more explicit about its unique role.

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 per-action parameter requirements (e.g., list takes no params, create requires multiple fields). It implies when to use each action but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dokploy_backup or dokploy_server. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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