Delete a Lucky port forward

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond those. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, whether existing connections are affected, or how idempotency behaves when the key does not exist.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant wording or filler, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 destructive tool, the description is too thin. It omits how to source the key, what happens after deletion, and how this relates to other port-forward tools like lucky_set_port_forward_enabled. The annotations cover the destructive nature, but the description still leaves important practical details unaddressed.

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, but it merely repeats the parameter name by saying 'by key.' It does not explain what a key is, where to find it, or what format it takes beyond the schema's generic string type.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('port-forward rule'), and the identifying mechanism ('by key'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like lucky_upsert_port_forward, lucky_set_port_forward_enabled, and lucky_list_port_forwards.

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 that this tool should be used when a port-forward rule needs to be removed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as lucky_set_port_forward_enabled for disabling a rule. There is no mention of prerequisites, like obtaining the key from lucky_list_port_forwards.

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