Expose a service through Lucky

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent, and the description goes further by specifying that an existing domain only updates backend/name/auth and that no new listen port is created. It does not disclose listener-selection behavior or handling of optional auth/timeout fields, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences; every one carries a distinct constraint or behavioral fact. There is no filler or repetition.

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 core invocation details—idempotency, listener reuse, domain/backend formats—are present and the schema covers most parameters. The main gaps are listener-target selection behavior and return semantics, which matter given 10 parameters and no output schema.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description reinforces domain/backend formats and groups 'name/auth' as updatable fields, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence names a specific action—idempotently attach a hostname to an existing Lucky listener and reverse-proxy to a backend—which clearly separates it from unexpose and route-enable siblings. It also states the core scope (existing listener, no new port).

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 provides clear context for when to use it: attach a hostname to an existing listener, with domain/backend format constraints and idempotent update behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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