manage_wireguard_tunnel_address

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it states the tool can 'remove' an address, which is destructive, yet destructiveHint is false. The description also fails to mention the confirm safety gate required for delete operations or the apply_immediately behavior, leaving critical behavioral context undisclosed.

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, straightforward sentence with no filler. It is concise, though it could have included more context without becoming verbose. Its brevity earns a high score, but it slightly misses top marks because it omits essential operational details.

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?

Despite having an output schema and rich parameter schema, the description lacks critical context such as the confirm requirement for delete operations, the effect of apply_immediately, and when to use this tool over similar ones. This is a non-trivial mutation tool, and the description is too minimal to be fully 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 schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to elaborate. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents each parameter's purpose and constraints clearly.

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 'Add or remove' and clearly identifies the resource 'address for a WireGuard tunnel'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like manage_wireguard_peer_allowed_ip by focusing on the tunnel's own address, not peer allowed IPs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as search_wireguard_tunnel_addresses for reading existing addresses or manage_wireguard_peer_allowed_ip for peer IP management. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond the basic action.

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