wireguard_create_interface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses validation/overlap checks, that 'router' keys never leave the router, and that user-supplied keys arrive via a local popup on apply. However, it omits major behavioral traits encoded as defaults: dry_run=true (nothing actually applied unless changed), rollback_minutes=5, allow_in_firewall=true, and trust_as_lan=false.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then uses a compact field-by-field list where each item carries substantive information (formats, ask-the-user mandate, key-source branching). Slightly dense but no filler sentences.

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 need not be described. But for a mutating network-configuration tool with no annotations, 10 params, and 0% schema coverage, leaving dry_run and rollback_minutes unexplained leaves an agent unsure what will actually be applied and what safety net exists.

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% with 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain 5 of 10 (address format and validation, private_key_source semantics, private_key handling, wg_name, listen_port) with real added meaning. The remaining 5 — name, dry_run, trust_as_lan, rollback_minutes, allow_in_firewall — are undocumented despite dry_run and rollback_minutes being behaviorally critical.

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 and resource ('Create (or update) a WireGuard interface'), which cleanly separates it from the peer-management siblings. The '(or update)' dual purpose adds slight ambiguity but the core operation is 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?

Gives operational guidance on required inputs and, notably, a decision rule for private_key_source ('router' vs 'user' with the rebuild-tunnel case). It does not state when this tool should be chosen over alternatives like wireguard_add_peer, but the resource scope makes that implicit.

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