create_wireguard_tunnel

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention that creation may be immediate only if apply_immediately is true, nor does it explain configuration persistence or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it replicates the tool name and provides no structured detail. It lacks the two-sentence clarity seen in high-scoring descriptions, and the brevity borders on under-specification.

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?

With 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete; it offers no context about the creation effect, application behavior, or relation to peer management. The agent must rely entirely on the schema and sibling tool names to understand the operation's implications.

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 description does not discuss parameters, but the schema provides complete descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema carries the meaning. The tool description adds no extra semantic context beyond what the schema already offers.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'WireGuard tunnel', making the operation unmistakable. It distinguishes from sibling create tools like create_wireguard_peer by naming the target resource directly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_wireguard_peer or update_wireguard_tunnel. It omits prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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