delete_wireguard_tunnel

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

The description adds the warning 'This is irreversible', which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying permanence. This is valuable context for a destructive operation, though it does not mention safety gates like confirm or dry_run (which are in the schema).

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 two sentences: a clear purpose statement and a necessary warning. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words or repetitive content.

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 destructive nature, the description includes an irreversible warning, and the schema plus annotations cover confirm, dry_run, and destructiveHint. The presence of an output schema means return values are already documented. It could mention the confirm requirement explicitly, but this is present in the schema, so overall the description is adequately complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, including descriptions for confirm, dry_run, tunnel_id, and apply_immediately. The description only adds 'by ID', which is redundant with the tunnel_id field description, so no additional semantic value is provided.

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 'Delete a WireGuard tunnel by ID', specifying a precise verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling deletion tools like delete_wireguard_peer and delete_firewall_schedule by naming the exact object type.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as updating a tunnel instead or using dry_run first. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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