wireguard_update_peer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: keys are never generated, key entry happens 'in a local popup on apply', allowed_address is validated, and endpoint accepts '' to clear. It omits other important behaviors, notably the dry_run default of true and the rollback_minutes safety window, which an agent needs to know before mutating a peer.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, then per-parameter notes in a compact format. Slightly fragmented across lines but every sentence adds information with little waste.

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 explained, and the description covers the trickiest parameters. But for a 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the omission of dry_run/rollback safety semantics and most parameter meanings leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only documents about half the 13 parameters (allowed_address syntax, endpoint format, replace_*_key, new_public_key alias). It says nothing about disabled, new_comment, persistent_keepalive, rollback_minutes, or dry_run, leaving significant gaps on a low-coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Modify a WireGuard peer') and names the lookup key ('found by its public key or comment'), which clearly separates it from wireguard_add_peer, wireguard_remove_peer, and wireguard_create_interface.

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 word 'Modify' plus the peer lookup implies this is for changing existing peers rather than creating them, and the endpoint note ('"" to clear (roaming client)') gives a concrete usage condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs the sibling mutation tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing interface.

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