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

Annotations already declare write, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds a valuable behavioral nuance: the version is rebuilt only if its snapshot is gone, and the response indicates whether that happened. This goes beyond structured data, though it does not cover other aspects like permissions or error cases.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a key conditional detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main action and an important conditional behavior (rebuild + response indicator). It is largely complete, though it doesn't address error handling or permission requirements.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no additional meaning about versionId or templateId beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific action ('Make a version the one missions use') and resource (sandbox template version), making the purpose clear and distinguishable from read-only siblings like list_sandbox_template_versions. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with related write tools such as save_sandbox_template or build_sandbox_template.

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 context ('from their next dispatch') but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or how this tool relates to version creation or listing tools.

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