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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: state is archived and restored intact on wake, so nothing is lost. This tells the agent the operation is reversible and non-destructive. It stops short of stating auth requirements, cost/latency, or whether the environment remains reachable while asleep.

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 verb, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the persistence guarantee. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior adequately but omits the state of the environment after sleeping, how it is resumed (the wake_environment sibling), and any permission implications. Adequate but with clear gaps given the structured fields provide no support.

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?

Single 'environment' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it as 'Computer id, slug or name'. The description adds no parameter detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Put a computer to sleep') and describes the effect on the filesystem. It is clearly distinguishable from the obvious counterpart wake_environment, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives like wake_environment, create_checkpoint, or restore_checkpoint. The relevant usage is only implied by the verb.

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