tenki_terminate_sandbox

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable context by specifying that both the microVM and its filesystem are gone, emphasizing irreversibility beyond the bare 'destructive' flag. It does not discuss failure modes or already-terminated sessions, but the annotations cover the key behavioral profile.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action, clarifies it with 'destroy', and immediately states the concrete consequence. Every element earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter destructive action, the description, schema, and annotations together provide what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: the action, the permanent effect, and the session ID source. The absence of an output schema is a minor gap, but not significant enough to make the tool hard to use.

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 input schema fully describes the sole parameter, session_id, including its type, format, and provenance from tenki_create_sandbox or tenki_list_sandboxes. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details, and the 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 uses a specific verb 'Terminate (destroy)' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a sandbox'. It reinforces the meaning by stating the consequence: 'The microVM and its filesystem are gone after this.' This makes the permanent, destructive nature unambiguous and distinguishes it from pause/update/list 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 implies use when a sandbox needs to be permanently destroyed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as tenki_pause_sandbox for temporary stops or tenki_terminate_sandboxes for batch termination. Sibling names suggest these distinctions, but no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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