remove_wireguard_peer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it is a WRITE tool, blocked unless MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true, defaults to a non-mutating preview, and errors on zero or multiple matches rather than guessing. This is exactly the safety and side-effect context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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-loads the command and resolution rule, then the guard/preview behavior, then error semantics. Every sentence earns its place, though it is somewhat longer than strictly necessary.

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 destructive, annotation-free, 0%-schema-coverage tool, the description covers guardrails, dry-run workflow, resolution, and failure modes; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Only device_name's role is left implicit.

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 compensate, and it explains the resolution logic for public_key vs comment (priority order, at-least-one rule) and the meaning of confirm's default. device_name and interface are only implicitly covered (interface appears in the command path), leaving one parameter under-explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a WireGuard peer'), names the underlying RouterOS command path, and specifies how the peer is resolved (public_key or comment). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like add_wireguard_peer and wireguard_peers.

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?

Gives strong invocation context: at least one of public_key/comment must be supplied, public_key is tried first, and the confirm=False default previews while confirm=True executes. It doesn't name an alternative tool to use instead, but the when/how-to-use guidance is explicit.

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