dokploy_vault_provider

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the critical update-replaces-provider semantics requiring all four fields, the limitation that secret values are never readable, and that credentials are never echoed. These are material traits an agent must know before calling correctly.

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 dense but efficiently organized, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then moving through action semantics and caveats. It is longer than average, but every sentence carries operational value for a complex multi-provider, multi-action tool.

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, absent annotations, and absent output schema, the description does a strong job: it covers action semantics, required parameter groupings, provider-type discrimination, assignment meaning, and secret-value limitations. It still leaves some operational detail to the schema (defaults, exact fields per provider), but those are already structed, so the description is nearly complete on its own.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains that config is discriminated by providerType, clarifies the dangerous ambiguity between provider-owned projectId and Dokploy assignment projectId, and defines assignments as Dokploy project/environment scopes. This directly compensates for the schema's under-described nested fields.

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 identifies the tool as managing external secret-manager (vault) providers and enumerates every action (list, get, create, update, remove, testConnection, listSecretNames). This makes the resource and verb set unambiguous, and the 'vault' resource clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like dns_provider or registry.

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 provides clear practical guidance for selecting and sequencing operations: run get before update, use testConnection with config before saving, and note that listSecretNames returns names only. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the resource scope makes the intended use obvious and the in-tool action guidance is strong.

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