update_wireguard_settings

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, which convey safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as whether changes are applied immediately or require a separate apply step. This is neutral but not additive, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 extremely concise (five words), but it is also under-specified. It reads almost as a restatement of the tool name, lacking any elaboration that would help an agent. While there is no fluff, the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail.

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 tool has five optional parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to contextualize what 'service settings' means or how this tool fits into the WireGuard workflow. An agent would not know when to choose update_wireguard_settings over update_wireguard_tunnel or apply_wireguard_changes.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully explains all five parameters, including types and defaults. The description merely says 'settings' without enumerating or elaborating on them, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'WireGuard service settings', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_wireguard_settings (read) and apply_wireguard_changes (apply). However, it does not specify which settings are affected beyond the generic 'service settings', so it lacks a bit of specificity compared to a higher score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it updates service-level settings rather than tunnel or peer settings, nor does it clarify the relationship to apply_wireguard_changes. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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