dokploy_dns_provider

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and discloses important hidden behaviors: update REPLACES the provider, credentials are never echoed, provider reads return only id/name/providerType, and record type is restricted to A or CNAME. This is far beyond what the input schema alone reveals.

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 efficiently organized into 'Providers:' and 'Records:' sections, front-loaded with the overall purpose. Every sentence adds operational value, especially the behavioral caveats about replacement and credential non-echoing.

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?

For an 11-action tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete, covering action-specific requirements, config construction, and provider read return shape. The only notable gap is that record-related list operations (listZones/listRecords) do not describe their return structure, but this is minor given the level of detail provided.

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 50%, but the description compensates by mapping each action to its required parameters, explaining the discriminated config union, clarifying that recordName is distinct from provider name, and noting ttl is optional. It also gives examples for content (IP vs target host), adding meaning the schema lacks.

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?

States specific verb + resource: 'DNS provider configuration and DNS record management.' It enumerates all actions with their required parameters, making it unmistakable what the tool does and how it is differentiated from sibling tools like dokploy_vault_provider.

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 gives explicit guidance for each action, e.g. 'update (dnsProviderId+name+config)' and 'testConnection (dnsProviderId for a saved provider, or config to check credentials before saving)'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the resource-specific name and sibling list make the use case clear.

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