enable_wireguard_peer

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, providing the safety profile. The description adds the peer_id format detail but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects or prerequisites beyond that. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a clear one-sentence purpose and a brief, relevant note about the peer_id format. There is zero fluff and the important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple and annotated as safe and idempotent, and an output schema exists. The description covers the core action and the required parameter format, but the device parameter is unexplained, and there is no mention of what happens when enabling an already-enabled peer or error cases. Moderate completeness for a simple tool.

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 provides meaningful guidance for peer_id, explaining the '*N' format and that it comes from list output. However, the device parameter is not described at all, and with schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the missing semantics of half the parameters.

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 'Enables a WireGuard peer' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like disable_wireguard_peer and create_wireguard_peer, and the note about peer_id format further clarifies the target.

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 implies usage for enabling WireGuard peers via the tool name and the note that peer_id comes from list output, suggesting a prerequisite to list peers first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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