dokploy_docker_volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that removeVolume destroys the volume and its data, documents that readVolumeFile is truncated at 100k chars, and explains that volume writes persist across redeploys.

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 structured, front-loading the tool's purpose and then grouping actions clearly. Every clause adds information: optional serverId, raw inspect behavior, truncation, destructiveness, and sibling tool routing. There is little wasted wording.

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 multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors, parameter requirements, safety warnings, and cross-tool distinctions. Missing return-format details for list/read actions are a minor gap, but an agent can still select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 40%, but the description compensates by mapping actions to their required parameters, e.g. getVolumeConfig: volumeName and file actions require volumeName + path, with writeVolumeFile also requiring content. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about path formatting.

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 and resource pair — 'Docker volume management and volume file access' — and then enumerates each action with its precise effect. It clearly distinguishes the tool from related siblings like dokploy_docker and dokploy_volume_backup.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use volume file writes versus container writes, noting that volume writes survive redeploys. It also directs users to dokploy_volume_backup for scheduled backups and warns to take a backup before removeVolume.

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