dokploy_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what getServices returns (applications, compose services, databases and their projects) and cautions to check before removal, which is genuine added context. But it says nothing about auth requirements, reversibility, what remove actually destroys, or error behavior for a tool containing destructive actions.

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?

Extremely compact, action-by-action with zero filler and the key constraint front-loaded. Structure is efficient, though the dense run-on formatting makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted breakdown would be.

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 nine-action, twelve-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the calling mechanics well (which params per action, one return-content note, one caution). It is still thin on mutation semantics, permissions, and the undocumented dataPoints parameter, leaving meaningful gaps for such a complex tool.

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 8%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by mapping parameters to actions (create: name+ipAddress+port+username+sshKeyId+serverType, etc.). However, it omits the dataPoints parameter entirely and never explains the meaning or format of any parameter, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 tool is a multi-action server manager, and the description enumerates all nine actions with their parameters, making the resource (servers) and each operation concrete. 'Manage servers' alone is generic, but the per-action breakdown removes ambiguity about what the tool actually does and separates it from siblings like dokploy_ssh_key or dokploy_infrastructure.

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?

It gives an implicit when-to-use signal by mapping each action to its required params, and adds a real routing hint: '(check before removing a server)'. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when an action is inappropriate, so usage is only partially guided.

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