disable_wireguard_peer

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not explain the effect of disabling, whether it is reversible, or what happens if the peer is already disabled.

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 extremely concise, with the core action in the first sentence and parameter notes cleanly separated. Every word earns its place.

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 simple disable operation, the description covers the essential purpose and the tricky peer_id format. The presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the need for further detail, though usage alternatives are missing.

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 schema only defines peer_id as a string with no formatting details. The description's note explains the accepted formats ('*N' or 'N' from list output), which adds meaningful semantic value. However, the optional 'device' parameter is left undocumented.

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 a clear resource ('WireGuard peer'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like enable_wireguard_peer and remove_wireguard_peer.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to disable vs. remove a peer). The description only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites or contextual use cases.

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