dokploy_settings

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not warn that clean is destructive or that reload may interrupt services, nor does it explain permissions or side effects. The only behavioral nuance provided is the conditional serverId handling, which is useful but insufficient for a tool containing destructive and system-impacting operations.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'System settings.' followed by action-specific details. Every phrase carries informational weight, with no fluff or repetition. The dense colon-separated format is efficient for an 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?

The description covers all actions and parameter dependencies, so an agent can likely invoke the tool correctly. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description omits behavioral context such as destructive consequences and expected return values for operations like clean and reload. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining each action and enumerating valid cleanType and reloadTarget values with conditional rules for serverId. A minor gap is that serverId itself is not explicitly defined beyond when it applies.

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 defines what the tool does: it exposes system settings operations such as health, version, IP, clean, and reload. Each action is paired with a concise verb and target, making the tool's scope understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate these operations from overlapping sibling tools like dokploy_server, info, or dokploy_docker.

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 clear conditional usage context: serverId is only honored for docker-related clean types and only for reload when the target is traefik. This helps an agent decide which parameters to include for each action. It does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling alternatives, but the parameter-level guidance is strong.

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