dokploy_domain

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose what actions are destructive (e.g., delete), what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur (e.g., DNS changes). Actions like 'generate' and 'canGenerateTraefikMe' remain opaque. The description only lists parameter requirements, not behavioral traits.

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 (one sentence), but this makes it crammed and hard to parse due to heavy abbreviation and lack of separation between actions. A more structured format (e.g., bullet points) would improve readability without increasing length significantly.

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 15 parameters and 8 actions with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how actions like 'validate' work. The cryptic specifications for 'generate' and 'canGenerateTraefikMe' leave agents with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 (13%), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by mapping actions to required parameters (e.g., 'create: host+applicationId|composeId'), but uses ambiguous syntax (pipe for OR, plus for combination, question mark for optional). It clarifies which parameters are needed per action, but does not explain all parameters (e.g., path, port, https).

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 states 'Manage domains' and enumerates actions (create, list, get, update, delete, generate, canGenerateTraefikMe, validate), giving a clear verb+resource. However, it uses cryptic abbreviations like '+serviceName for compose' and 'canGenerateTraefikMe: serverId?' which slightly obscure purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools focusing on other resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_application, dokploy_compose). It does not explain that domain management is needed for DNS or routing. An agent would need to infer usage from the actions listed, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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