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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that this is a sandbox-only operation and that live activation is separate, which are critical behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but for a bootstrap tool this is reasonable.

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, front-loading the purpose and adding critical context about live activation. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks guidance on return values (intent, key) and does not explain parameter interactions or usage constraints, making it incomplete for proper invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., agent_name, ttl_hours, metadata) or their meanings. This is a significant gap for parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'free sandbox setup intent and scoped sandbox key'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like hilt_activate_* by explicitly noting that live activation is a separate paid step, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for free sandbox setup and directly states that live activation is a separate paid step, which helps an agent decide between this and activation tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the implied exclusion.

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