lucky_update_web_service

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint: the value must be the 'complete' native object, implying full replacement rather than a partial patch. It does not disclose failure behavior for unknown keys or invalid objects, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

One sentence with the active verb front-loaded and no filler or repetition of the tool name. Every word contributes to describing the operation and inputs.

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 simple two-parameter update with no output schema, the description gives the operation and inputs but omits the actual shape of the value object and any error or edge-case context. Since the schema is an opaque generic object, an agent cannot reliably construct a valid value from this definition alone.

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 maps key to the service identifier and value to the complete native Lucky JSON object, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it provides no structure, required fields, or relationship between key and value, leaving the agent to guess the object shape.

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?

States a specific action (Update) on a specific resource (Lucky web service) and names the two inputs (key and complete native Lucky JSON object). The resource name disambiguates it from sibling update tools for certificates, stun rules, port forwards, and DDNSS. 'Complete native Lucky JSON object' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but the core purpose is clear.

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 imperative 'Update a Lucky web service' makes the basic use case clear, implying use for modifying an existing service rather than creating or deleting one. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives such as lucky_create_web_service or lucky_delete_web_service.

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