Create or update a Lucky port forward

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

Annotations already signal idempotent, non-read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful details beyond the annotations: matching is by listen_port + protocol unless key is provided, and the operation does not send Lucky's full native object. It does not fully explain update/overwrite effects on omitted fields, but it goes beyond what structured annotations alone provide.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds matching semantics and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter upsert with no output schema and no param-level descriptions, the description provides the essential mapping and matching behavior but leaves gaps around optional parameters and what the response/return behavior looks like. The caveat about not sending Lucky's full native object is vague and could benefit from elaboration.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It usefully clarifies that listen_port is external and target_ip/target_port are internal, and that protocol or key controls matching. However, it does not explain listen_ip, name, or enabled, leaving several parameters to be inferred from their names alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Idempotently map an external listen port to an internal ip:port.' It also distinguishes this upsert operation from the sibling list/delete/enable port-forward tools by emphasizing create-or-update semantics.

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 that this tool is the idempotent create/update path for port forwards, with matching semantics for identifying existing entries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the upsert framing is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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