lucky_update_port_forward

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

The phrase 'complete native Lucky JSON object' hints that the value replaces or fully specifies the port forward, which adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or whether unspecified fields are reset. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler or redundant restatement. Every part contributes 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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter descriptions, and an untyped nested value object, the description is too thin for an agent to reliably construct a correct update. It lacks examples, the shape of the native Lucky JSON object, and context about how the key relates to existing resources.

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. It does identify 'key' as the identifier and 'value' as a complete native Lucky JSON object, but it does not elaborate on the structure or required fields of that object, leaving the agent with only a general understanding.

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 ('Update') and resource ('Lucky port forward') and names the mechanism ('using its key'). It is not a mere tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like lucky_create_port_forward or lucky_delete_port_forward, though it does not explicitly disambiguate from them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling create/list/delete port-forward tools. It implies usage through the verb 'Update' but does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or any alternative selection criteria.

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