remove_wireguard_peer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which tell the agent the operation is destructive and retry-safe. The description adds only the peer_id format note, which is more about parameters than behavior. It does not disclose side effects like disconnecting the peer or irreversibility, but the annotations carry that burden.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a concise, relevant note about the required parameter. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 removal tool with strong annotations (destructive, idempotent) and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and the critical peer_id format. It lacks explanation of device param and error/edge cases, but these are not severe gaps given the tool's simplicity and structured annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add value for peer_id by explaining its format ('*N' or 'N' from list output, e.g., '*2'), which is essential for correct use. However, the optional 'device' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving that gap unfilled.

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 resource ('a WireGuard peer from the MikroTik device'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like add_wireguard_peer, get_wireguard_peer, update_wireguard_peer, and enable/disable_wireguard_peer. The purpose 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 implies usage: use this when you want to permanently delete a WireGuard peer. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer removal over disabling (disable_wireguard_peer exists as a sibling), nor any preconditions like 'peer must exist' or 'this will terminate active sessions'. Usage is clear but not actively guided.

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