set_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action ('Configure') and the return value, but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., must be connected), error behavior, or whether changes are reversible. This is a significant gap for a configuration tool.

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 well-structured with a note, args list, and returns section. It is concise but could be slightly tighter (e.g., avoiding repetition of 'on' or 'off' in each arg). Overall, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters) and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details about validation, default behavior, and post-change effects, which are important for an agent to use the tool safely.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and expected values ('on' or 'off'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, making it clear what each parameter does and what values to use.

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 it 'Configure[s] WireGuard tunnel protocol options' and specifies the two parameters, quantum resistance and IPv6. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that Mullvad CLI 2026.1 is WireGuard-only, so this tool is specifically for WireGuard protocol settings.

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 provides context that the tool is for WireGuard-specific options and mentions the CLI version as WireGuard-only. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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