dokploy_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state that schedules run commands against resources, which implies execution behavior, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., that runManually immediately executes the command, or that remove deletes an active schedule). The action list is descriptive but lacks explicit warnings or consequences, placing it at the minimum viable level.

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 a dense, information-packed block with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, then actions are compactly listed with required parameter patterns. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool's complexity (17 parameters, 6 actions, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers all actions, required parameters, relationship between scheduleType and target IDs, and special list id value. Minor gaps exist (e.g., whether update is partial or full replacement, or error behavior), but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 41%, so the description must compensate. It effectively adds meaning by grouping parameters per action, clarifying parent-id semantics for list ('applicationId|composeId|serverId|dokploy-server'), and listing enum values (scheduleType, shellType). This goes beyond the raw schema and helps an agent assemble valid requests.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Manage cron schedules that run commands against applications, compose services, or servers.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (none of which mention schedules) and enumerates all supported actions (create, update, remove, get, list, runManually), leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 per-action parameter requirements (e.g., 'create: name+cronExpression+command (+ scheduleType and matching applicationId/composeId/serverId)'), which effectively tells an agent what to provide for each operation. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the scope of targets (applications, compose services, servers) is clear and no overlapping sibling exists, so this is strong guidance.

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