Update WireGuard client

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that only provided fields are changed and all others are preserved, which is a critical behavioral trait for an update endpoint. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication needs, or what happens if the client does not exist, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 just two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 has 11 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or side effects (e.g., whether changes apply immediately). The schema covers parameters thoroughly, but the lack of behavioral details beyond partial-update semantics leaves some gaps for an agent.

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%, and each parameter has a detailed description in the schema (e.g., expiresAt explains null removes expiry). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not exceed 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a WireGuard client'), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_clients, create_client, and delete_client. The additional sentence about preserving unchanged fields further clarifies that this is a partial update, removing any ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' and the sibling tool list, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over create_client or other alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no direct 'use this for' guidance, though the partial-update behavior gives some situational context.

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