Manage WireGuard Peer

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by detailing the idempotent behavior: 'add returns already_exists if a peer with the same public key already exists.' This goes beyond annotations, though it omits specifics about what 'remove' returns or the role of dryRun/confirmationToken.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, immediately followed by a key behavioral detail. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and idempotence. It does not explain the confirmation flow for destructive actions (dryRun, confirmationToken), but annotations partially compensate. Still, a bit more context on return values for 'remove' or error cases would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, achieving baseline 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 'Add or remove a WireGuard peer,' specifying the verb and resource. It also explains idempotent behavior, distinguishing it from potentially similar peer management tools by focusing on WireGuard peers.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other manage_* tools for different resources). The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios for add vs remove, or when to avoid using this tool.

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