asuswrt_wireguard_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: that the operation requires confirmation and supports dry-run. However, it omits what a disconnect does to the active tunnel, whether the change is reversible, and whether elevated credentials are needed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the operations first and the safety caveat second, with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably compressed to the point of under-specifying the parameters.

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?

This is a mutating, potentially disruptive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, so the description should do the explanatory work. It leaves key gaps: the meaning of 'unit', what confirm does, and what dry-run returns, none of which an agent can infer from the structured fields.

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 for all four parameters. It only conveys the action values indirectly and merely nods at confirm/dry_run via 'safeguards'; the required 'unit' parameter (which slot, and how it is numbered) is left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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 names a specific resource (an already-configured WireGuard client slot) and the exact operations available (connect, disconnect, restart), so an agent can tell it apart from read-only siblings like asuswrt_vpn_client_status. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'already-configured' implies a prerequisite (a slot must exist before calling), and 'with confirmation and dry-run safeguards' hints at the safety workflow, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. any of the 60+ sibling tools or when not to call it.

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