update_wireguard_peer

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

Annotations already disclose read-only=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, application timing, or whether changes are immediately active, merely restating the action without going beyond structured data.

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 sentence with a front-loaded verb and zero filler, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool description.

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 mutation tool with 10 optional parameters, this description is too terse. It does not clarify whether unspecified fields are left unchanged or reset to null, nor does it mention the apply_immediately behavior that affects when changes take effect. Even with an output schema present, the update semantics remain ambiguous.

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?

All 10 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond 'by ID', which is already covered by the required peer_id parameter, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 the specific verb 'update' and clearly identifies the resource as an existing WireGuard peer by ID, distinguishing it from create, search, and delete sibling tools.

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 implies usage for modifying existing peers but does not explicitly state when to use this over create/delete or mention prerequisites like searching for the peer ID first. The 'by ID' hint is present but no explicit context or alternatives are given.

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