Destroy Experiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that the tool destroys the sandbox and everything in it, states that it is idempotent, and explains that calling it on an already-destroyed experiment returns the stored report instead of erroring.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then usage guidance, idempotency, and return-value explanation. Each sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, what it does, the destructive scope, idempotency behavior, and what the return report contains.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining that experiment_id may refer to an already-destroyed experiment and that the call remains safe, returning the stored report rather than failing.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Destroy a sandbox and everything in it.' It also clarifies the return value, a final report, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, execute, read, or inspect experiments. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 says 'USE THIS as soon as an experiment has told you what you needed' and 'Always call it,' giving a clear trigger and a strong directive. It also explains the downside of not calling it: a sandbox left running keeps consuming CPU and memory.

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