enable_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 agent knows the operation is safe and repeatable. However, the description adds no further behavioral context beyond restating the name, such as what enabling actually changes, whether the device parameter is required, or how it affects traffic.

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 redundant words, making it easy to parse. It is well-structured for its brevity, though it lacks semantic depth that would make it more useful.

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?

Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description omits essential contextual information about parameter meanings and usage scenarios. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly without additional assumptions about what 'name' and 'device' refer to.

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%, and the description provides no meaning for the required 'name' parameter or the optional 'device' parameter. The agent only has schema titles 'Name' and 'Device,' which are insufficient to know what values to supply.

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 ('Enables') and the specific resource ('a WireGuard interface'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like enable_wireless_interface or enable_wireguard_peer. The verb and resource are concrete and the scope is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_wireguard_interface, disable_wireguard_interface, or enable_interface. There is no mention of prerequisites like the interface needing to already exist or be disabled.

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