add_wireguard_interface

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: write-gating, private-key never accepted or returned, the preview's limited `after` payload, the real public-key surfaced only on apply with private-key stripped, and the duplicate-name error path. This goes well beyond what any structured field discloses.

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?

Front-loaded with the creation action followed by behavioral caveats in short paragraphs; mostly tight, though the key-handling and README reference add some redundancy beyond what a caller strictly needs.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, it covers the critical behavioral surface (write gate, two-phase confirm, key handling, idempotency). The one meaningful hole is the undocumented required `device_name`, which leaves the call-site context partially incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must define all four parameters. It explains the semantics of `confirm` thoroughly and touches `name` (existence check) and `listen-port`, but `device_name` - a REQUIRED parameter - is never mentioned anywhere, leaving an agent unable to know what it means or what to supply.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a WireGuard tunnel interface'), mapping to a clear RouterOS operation, and is distinguishable from siblings like wireguard_interfaces (list) and add_wireguard_peer by naming the exact resource created.

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?

Explicitly states this is a guarded WRITE tool blocked unless MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true, and prescribes the two-step confirm=False preview then confirm=True apply flow. It does not name an alternative tool for listing/inspecting existing interfaces, leaving that routing to inference.

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