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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the required 'repo' scope and the specific degraded-mode return '{ok:false, reason:"not enabled on this host"}', which tells the agent this can fail benignly rather than erroring. It does not describe the success payload or side effects such as resource consumption.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the failure mode last. The 'Wraps pr-sandbox.provisionSandbox' clause is arguably internal trivia, but it is compact and occasionally useful for debugging.

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 provisioning mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth scope and one failure sentinel, which is helpful. It still leaves gaps: what a sandbox is and its lifetime, whether repeated calls destroy existing state, and what a successful response contains.

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 across three required parameters, the description must carry the burden. It only obliquely gestures at 'repo' (via the scope requirement) and 'a PR'; the owner, repo, and number parameters and their expected formats (PR number as number, owner/repo as slugs) are never 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?

The description gives a specific verb-plus-resource: provision or re-provision a sandbox for a PR, and notes the underlying pr-sandbox.provisionSandbox call. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it never names a sibling (e.g. get_preview_url or acquire_lease) that an agent might confuse it with.

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 parenthetical '(or re-provision)' implies the tool is idempotent and safe to call again on an existing PR, which is useful usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any preconditions such as the PR needing to exist or the repo being enabled.

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