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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it writes a template (SPA, SSR, or static), fixes directory traverse permissions, and reloads nginx. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing configs or require explicit prerequisites (e.g., active sandbox session), but the disclosed behaviors are core and sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effect.

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 sentences, concise and to the point. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the key differentiators (handles permissions, template selection, reload). The alternative advice is appended efficiently without redundancy. It could be trimmed slightly, but it is well-structured and informative.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (deploy, template selection, permissions, reload) but does not explicitly mention the return value or success/failure semantics. The schema itself provides required workspace_id and other details, so the agent can infer prerequisites. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly, though a note on expected response would improve it.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The description adds minimal value by noting the parameters come from framework detection and are used to select the template, but this is largely redundant with the schema's own descriptions. It does not clarify parameter syntax or edge cases beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: deploy an nginx configuration on the sandbox and reload. It specifies the resource (nginx config), the verb (deploy), and the specific behaviors (writes the correct template based on type, fixes permissions, reloads). It also differentiates from manual construction, which helps distinguish it from other sandbox tools.

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 explicitly advises using this tool instead of manually constructing nginx config, and notes it handles permissions, template selection, and reload in one call. It implies usage after framework detection by referencing parameters from detection. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or give explicit exclusion criteria, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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