Delete WireGuard client

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly stating the irreversible consequences: 'This is irreversible: the client loses VPN access and its keys cannot be restored.' It also reveals the behavioral nuance of requiring a confirmation token, which is not available in annotations. This fully informs the agent of the tool's operational traits.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, irreversibility, and the confirmation flow. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundant phrases. This is an excellent balance of completeness and brevity.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers all necessary behavioral context for a destructive operation. It explains the irreversible nature, the confirmation token workflow, and the impact on the client. The tool's complexity is fully addressed without needing to describe return formats.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters (clientId and confirmToken) with their own descriptions. The tool description adds extra semantics by explaining why confirmToken is needed and its role in the two-step confirmation process. While the schema alone would be sufficient, the description enriches the understanding of the parameter behavior.

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 the tool's primary function: 'Permanently delete a WireGuard client.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client, update_client, or disable_client. The title reinforces the action, and the description adds critical scope (permanent deletion, loss of VPN access).

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 provides clear usage context by explaining the two-step confirmation flow: 'The first call returns a short-lived confirmation token; ask the user for confirmation, then call again with confirmToken.' This tells the agent when to call again and how to use the token. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., when to prefer disable_client over delete_client), so it lacks explicit when-not conditions.

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