Enable WireGuard client

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as the effect of enabling the client. It does not contradict the annotations, but also does not disclose additional details like what happens if the client is already enabled.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it optimally concise and well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description combined with the idempotent annotation provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the operation. However, it does not mention return value or behavior when already enabled, which would be useful but is not critical given the idempotent annotation.

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 fully documents the single parameter (clientId) with a description and constraints, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so it relies on the schema as baseline. No further semantic enrichment is provided.

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 adds the purpose 'so it can connect again', which clearly differentiates it from siblings like disable_client or create_client. It also implicitly indicates a state transition from disabled to enabled.

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 phrase 'so it can connect again' provides clear context that this tool is for re-enabling a previously disabled client, which distinguishes it from create_client or update_client. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the top score for explicit exclusions.

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