add_wireguard_peer

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

With no annotations provided, the description only mentions the need for write permission, indicating a destructive action. However, it does not disclose what happens on success, conflict, or error, nor any side effects beyond the write requirement.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action and requirement, and lists parameters clearly in separate lines. Every sentence contributes 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description covers parameters and a write requirement but lacks return value information, error scenarios, or behavior on duplicate entries. It is adequate for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context to each parameter, including example values (e.g., 'wg0', '10.10.0.2/32') and clarifies that endpoint fields are optional. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 WireGuard peer to an interface' in Indonesian, with a precise action on a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wireguard_peers (which lists peers) and wireguard_interfaces.

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 notes a required environment variable (MIKROCLAW_ALLOW_WRITE=true) as a prerequisite but offers no guidance on when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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