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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, non-read-only and open-world, and the description adds rich behavioral detail beyond them: changes apply immediately including to already-open connections, allow/deny narrow every port while connect adds host:port pairs, paid orgs reach every port versus ports 80/443 without credit, and private addresses are always refused.

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?

Dense but well organized, front-loading the resource and then splitting into get/set signatures with the rules that follow. Sentences are long and somewhat run-on, but nearly every clause adds usable information rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what get returns (rules, host version enforcement, host:port reach), and for the mutation path it covers the scope of effect. Per-permission error behavior and prerequisites are not stated, but for a two-action rules tool this is largely complete.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% (only the array item strings are documented), so the description carries real weight: it explains id, internet's interaction with the org's paid status, and the distinct semantics of allow/deny (narrow every port) versus connect (adds host:port). It adds meaning beyond the schema, though action's enum itself is only shown by example rather than described.

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 names the resource (a sandbox's internet access and its allow/deny/connect rules) and cleanly separates the two operations it exposes, get(id) and set(id, internet, allow?, deny?, connect?). Unlike the sibling network tools (private, upstream_proxy, wireguard), it is clearly scoped to a single sandbox's egress rules, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

It gives clear context for each action: get retrieves the rules and enforcement/reach status, set applies changes. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with sibling network tools (runtime_networks_private, runtime_networks_upstream_proxy), so an agent must infer that this is the sandbox-level variant.

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