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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the main action and the running-state requirement, but it omits side effects such as whether existing credentials are overwritten, whether prior authentication is required, or what happens on failure.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no redundant wording. It efficiently communicates the core action and a key precondition.

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?

There is no output schema and no mention of expected success/failure behavior. The description gives purpose and a precondition, but it does not specify what the agent should expect after invocation, how to choose between session_id and dev_stage_id, or what errors might occur.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is moderate. The description adds AK/SK context but does not clarify the relationship or precedence between session_id and dev_stage_id, nor how enable_sts interacts with the injection process.

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 clearly states the action ('Configure temporary AK/SK'), the target ('for a sandbox'), and the mechanism ('via hdkitservice'). It also distinguishes this tool from related sandbox operations like connect, exec, and upload by focusing on credential injection.

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 provides a precondition ('sandbox must be in RUNNING state') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternative tools such as auth_init or auth_switch. It does not explain when an agent should choose this over other auth-related operations.

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