Manage WireGuard Interface

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

Annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral details: idempotent by name, private key generation on create, public key returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (4 sentences) and efficiently front-loads the core actions and key details. No extraneous information.

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?

While the description covers key generation behavior, it does not specify return values for all actions (e.g., remove, enable, disable) or behavior on error. The lack of an output schema increases the need for such details.

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 100% with adequate parameter descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but provides context about idempotency and key generation that relates to the action and name parameters.

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 it manages WireGuard interfaces with specific actions (add, remove, enable, disable). It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_wireguard_peer by focusing on interfaces, and provides unique details about key generation.

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 use for WireGuard interface management, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, the name and sibling context make the intended use clear.

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