apply_wireguard_changes

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it sends a POST to the apply endpoint and activates pending changes, which is modest behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like service disruption or whether it affects existing tunnels beyond the pending changes.

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 sentences that immediately state the purpose and the mechanism (POST to apply endpoint). No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and scope.

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 simple apply-changes tool with no parameters and an output schema provided, the description fully conveys what triggers and what it affects. It is complete within the tool's low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% by default. Since there is nothing to document, the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools applies. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed.

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 applies pending WireGuard configuration changes, referencing tunnel, peer, and settings changes. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling apply tools (e.g., apply_firewall_changes, apply_ipsec_changes) by naming WireGuard.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: after making WireGuard configuration changes to activate them. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use), but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool among its siblings.

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