remove_wireguard_interface

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether removal is permanent, whether associated peers are also removed, or what happens if the interface does not exist. 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and includes no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple removal operation.

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 straightforward remove operation, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks critical context about dependencies (e.g., whether peers must be removed first), the role of the 'device' parameter, and any side effects beyond the obvious removal. Presence of an output schema helps, but the description alone leaves gaps for an agent to act correctly.

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 does not explain the 'name' or 'device' parameters. The parameter titles are somewhat self-explanatory (likely interface name and target device), but no format, constraints, or purpose details are given. Description fails to 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Removes' and clearly identifies the resource 'WireGuard interface' on the MikroTik device. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create, update, get, enable, disable, and other remove tools (e.g., remove_wireless_interface).

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, such as disabling the interface instead of removing it, or the need to remove associated peers first. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or reference to related sibling tools like remove_wireguard_peer.

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