Update WireGuard client

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: partial update semantics. 'Only the provided fields are changed; all other settings are preserved' prevents an agent from assuming a full replacement. However, with empty annotations, the description still lacks details about error handling, permissions, or response format, though the disclosed merge behavior is valuable.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second clarifies the update behavior. Front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 an 11-parameter tool, the schema provides thorough per-parameter descriptions, and the description adds the crucial merge semantics. While no output schema is present, the tool's behavior is sufficiently defined for correct invocation. Minor gaps like error conditions or parameter interactions remain, but overall it is complete enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters, including descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a WireGuard client') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_client or delete_client. It also adds a scope clarification (only provided fields are changed), reinforcing the 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 usage by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like enable_client or create_client. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the guidance is only implicit through the tool name.

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