wireguard_add_peer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that keys are never generated server-side, that preshared keys are entered via a local popup (not chat), that public_key is validated against the router's own key and existing peers, and that empty public_key yields a template. It does not explain dry_run semantics, rollback_minutes behavior, or the apply/confirm/rollback workflow from the sibling tools, which are significant for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses a clear field-by-field list that is easy to scan. It is somewhat long, but every line maps to a parameter or a behavioral rule, so it largely earns its space. Slightly dense but well organized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. Still, for a 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves several parameters (dry_run, rollback_minutes, name, site, comment, persistent_keepalive) unexplained. The core peer-creation flow is covered, but the gaps on operational parameters reduce completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 16 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents handful of key parameters (allowed_address, public_key, use_preshared_key, endpoint, write_client_config and its dependents, client_dns) with real semantics and formats. However, it ignores name, site, comment, dry_run, preshared_key, persistent_keepalive, rollback_minutes, and server_endpoint, leaving many undocumented despite the low coverage. Partial compensation warrants a middle score.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (WireGuard peer), clearly distinguishing it from wireguard_update_peer and wireguard_remove_peer. The scope is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the verb distinction makes purpose unmistakable.

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 explains when to provide each field and gives channel-specific guidance (e.g., 'ask the user', 'Never ask the user to paste it in chat'), which is helpful operational context. However, it never states when to use this tool vs wireguard_update_peer or wireguard_create_interface, nor does it mention prerequisites like an existing interface. Usage is implied rather than scoped.

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