Enable WireGuard client

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

The idempotentHint annotation already covers idempotency, and the description adds that the client will be able to connect again. This is minimal added context and does not disclose other behavioral traits such as state changes or prerequisites, but it does not contradict 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, compact sentence that directly states purpose and effect with no unnecessary words. It is highly concise while still being informative.

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 single-parameter tool with an idempotency annotation and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the action and outcome, though it could benefit from explicitly mentioning the relationship to disable_client. Sibling tools and schema fill most remaining gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter (clientId), with a description referencing list_clients. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it relies fully on the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 ('Enable') with a clear resource ('WireGuard client') and explains the intended effect ('so it can connect again'). This fully distinguishes it from its sibling disable_client and clearly communicates 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 implies the tool is for re-enabling a client that was previously disabled, but it does not explicitly mention disable_client or provide any exclusions/alternatives. Context is present but not directly stated, making this an implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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