Manage WireGuard Interface

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful context: idempotency by name, private key generation on create (never passed in), and public key return after creation. However, it does not elaborate on the consequences of destructive actions (remove/disable) beyond the annotation hint.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by idempotency and key behavior. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 description covers idempotency and key generation adequately, but for a destructive tool with no output schema, it lacks details on return format for actions other than create and does not provide cautionary notes about destructive operations.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the tool performs add, remove, enable, or disable actions on a WireGuard interface. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_wireguard_interfaces (listing) and manage_wireguard_peer (peer management) by specifying the resource and verbs.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, fallback tools, or scenarios where this tool should not be used. It only states the actions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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