generate_wireguard_client_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds that it does not communicate with the router, a useful offline-behavior trait beyond the safety hints. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, immediate statement of action, no fluff. The offline note is valuable and concise.

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?

With an output schema present, return format is covered. However, the 9-param tool has no parameter-level explanation; the description gives high-level behavior but not enough for an agent to confidently fill in all params. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is a minimal viable description.

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 description only references 'keys and server endpoint', leaving five of nine params (including client_address, dns, device, allowed_ips, server_port, persistent_keepalive) unexplained. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Clear verb 'generates' plus specific resource 'wg0.conf client config string' and inputs 'keys and server endpoint'. Distinguishes from router-communication tools by explicitly noting it does not communicate with the router.

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?

Provides clear context that this is an offline generation tool vs. router-modifying tools. Does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions, but the 'does not communicate' line implies a boundary and makes the use case evident.

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