Create WireGuard client

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: keys and IPs are auto-generated by wg-easy, and the tool returns the new client ID. This helps the agent understand there is no need to provide such values and what the output will be, adding meaningful context beyond a simple 'Create'.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every word serves a purpose. It efficiently conveys the core function, key generation behavior, and return value without any redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 well-documented params), no annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, how it behaves, and what it returns. The mention of generated keys/IPs preempts common usage questions, making it a complete standalone 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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (name and expiresAt), with coverage reported at 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail that isn't already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 starts with 'Create a new WireGuard client' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_client, enable_client, and delete_client by clearly indicating the creation operation. Additional detail about key/IP generation and returning a client ID further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for creating a new client, and it implicitly distinguishes from other client operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives (e.g., 'to update, use update_client'), so it misses explicit exclusions.

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