dokploy_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the actions and parameter constraints (e.g., serverId only honored for certain clean types), but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether clean is destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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, using a simple list format with minimal words. Every sentence provides essential information, and the structure front-loads the overall purpose ('System settings') followed by action-specific details. No fluff or redundancy.

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 multi-action complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers actions and their parameters adequately but does not explain return values, error handling, or any post-conditions. For a system settings tool, more context on what to expect from each action would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the enum values for cleanType and reloadTarget, and adds conditional logic for serverId. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could still clarify serverId's general purpose or other parameters like action itself.

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 clearly states 'System settings' and then enumerates specific actions (health, version, ip, clean, reload) with brief explanations. Each action has a distinct verb and resource, and the tool's purpose is easily distinguished from sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_application, dokploy_database) which focus on other domains.

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 implies when to use each action (e.g., 'check status' for health) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. It lacks guidance on choosing between actions or when to delegate to other tools.

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