Disable WireGuard client

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the idempotentHint annotation by clarifying that the client's configuration is preserved and it can no longer connect. This provides meaningful operational context without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a concise clarification. Every word adds value with no 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, an idempotent annotation, and no output schema, the description combined with the schema fully covers the necessary context: what the tool does, side effects, and parameter meaning.

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 schema covers the only parameter (clientId) with a clear description, including a reference to list_clients. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to elaborate further. It meets the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 function: disabling a WireGuard client. It distinguishes the action from siblings like enable_client and delete_client by explicitly noting that configuration is kept while connectivity is revoked.

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 context through the behavior it describes (temporary disablement rather than deletion), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide criteria for when to choose this tool over enable_client or delete_client. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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