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 behavioral burden and meets it: it discloses the destructive nature, idempotency ('calling it on an already-destroyed experiment is safe and returns the stored report rather than an error'), and the return contract ('what changed inside the sandbox'). This is exactly the disclosure an agent needs for a destructive call.

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 front-loaded with the core action and organized into clearly labeled sections (usage directive, idempotency, returns). Every sentence earns its place by adding a distinct piece of information — there is no filler, repetition, or vague phrasing.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is complete: it states the action, when to call it, the cost of not calling it, the idempotent re-call behavior, and the contents of the return. An output schema exists, so the return structure itself is already covered structurally.

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 description coverage is 100% — the sole parameter experiment_id is already documented as 'The experiment to destroy.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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' — and adds the outcome ('returning a final report'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_experiment (read-only), execute_experiment (run), and cancel_job (cancel a job, not destroy the sandbox).

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS as soon as an experiment has told you what you needed. Always call it.' It also supplies the rationale (a sandbox left running consumes CPU and memory) and implicitly tells the agent not to call it prematurely — collect what you need first, then destroy.

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