add_wireguard_peer

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond the action. It does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., interface must exist), duplicate handling, reversibility, or permission requirements. The notes clarify parameter formats, not side effects or operational constraints.

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 purpose is stated in one concise sentence, and the notes are formatted as a compact bulleted list with relevant examples. There is no redundant filler, and the structure is easy to scan and front-loaded with the core action.

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 create tool with 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the basic purpose and a few parameter formats but lacks usage context, prerequisites, and error/duplicate behavior. It leaves the agent uncertain about preconditions (e.g., existing interface) and how this tool interacts with sibling tools like update_wireguard_peer.

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?

The description adds concrete format examples for allowed_address (CIDR, comma-separated), endpoint_address (hostname/IP), and persistent_keepalive (seconds as string), which the schema does not provide. However, it omits clarifications for other important parameters like public_key (base64 format) and preshared_key, and with 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, this is only partial compensation.

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 action ('Adds a WireGuard peer') with specific attributes (public key and allowed addresses) and target (interface on the MikroTik device). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update, remove, list, get, enable, and disable by using the 'add' verb and specifying the resource.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that update_wireguard_peer should be used for existing peers, nor does it state prerequisites such as requiring an existing WireGuard interface. The verb 'adds' implies creation, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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