disable_wireguard_interface

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as the impact on traffic or whether configuration is preserved, leaving the agent without additional transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation and clearly readable.

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 basic disable operation, the description is minimal but lacks any usage context or parameter detail. Given that an output schema exists, return values need no explanation, but the tool still lacks guidance for an agent deciding when to invoke it, making it only minimally complete.

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 does not explain the meaning of the 'name' or 'device' parameters; schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent must rely solely on parameter names. While 'name' is fairly intuitive, 'device' is ambiguous and lacks clarification.

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 uses a specific verb 'Disables' and identifies the resource as 'WireGuard interface', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like enable_wireguard_interface or remove_wireguard_interface. It is unambiguous and directly states the action.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when disabling is preferred over removing, or prerequisites like the interface existing. The description offers no context on selecting this tool.

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