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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: the 409 conflict semantics, the exact prerequisite ordering to clear the conflict, the effect on in-flight missions (they finish), and the required scopes/capabilities (agents:write, config:write). This is exactly the beyond-annotation disclosure the dimension rewards.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope, then the conflict/remediation, then permissions. Every sentence carries operational information an agent needs; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the full decision surface: what is destroyed, when the call will fail, how to unblock it, side effects on running missions, and authorization requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single templateId parameter is documented in the schema as 'Sandbox id (sbt_...)'. The description adds no format or targeting semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (delete a sandbox template) and scopes it precisely: all versions and builds go with it. That distinguishes it from the near-named sibling delete_sandbox_registry and from archive-style tools without opening a schema.

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 defines the blocking condition (409 while an agent or a project's default sandbox uses it) and the remediation path (repoint via update_project with defaultSandboxTemplateId). It also states when the operation is safe to proceed despite live missions. Nothing about when to use or avoid it is left to inference.

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