dokploy_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: toggleEnable is a blind flag flip, validate performs DNS-against-server-IP checking, and serverId omission targets the Dokploy host. However, it omits whether delete is permanent, what side effects create has (Traefik/cert provisioning), auth requirements, and certificate issuance implications, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Highly dense, front-loaded with the resource, then a tight action:params mapping. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded. The semicolon-heavy wall of text is compact but readable as a lookup table.

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 a 9-action, 15-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action/parameter routing but omits return-value expectations, the semantics of five undocumented params, and the side effects of mutation actions. It is adequate but leaves an agent guessing on several invocation details.

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 20% across 15 params, so the description must compensate, and it does well on the identifier wiring (host+applicationId|composeId, domainId, appName, serverId, serviceName, enabled). But path, port, https, domainType, and certificateType are never mentioned in the description and lack schema docs, leaving a meaningful compensation 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 opening 'Manage domains' is a generic umbrella, but the per-action breakdown (create/list/get/update/delete/toggleEnable/generate/canGenerateTraefikMe/validate) with their required identifiers makes the tool's scope and each operation concrete. An agent can tell this is the domain resource manager and distinguish it from siblings like dokploy_redirects or dokploy_dns_provider. It stops short of a crisp verb+resource statement and never says what a 'domain' record actually represents.

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?

Strong intra-tool routing: it explicitly says toggleEnable 'flips the enable flag blind' and to 'prefer update with enabled:true|false when you need a known end state', and clarifies validate's serverId is optional ('omit for the Dokploy host'). It does not give when-to-use-this-tool-vs-sibling guidance (e.g. domain vs redirect), but the action-selection advice is explicit.

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