clear_sandbox

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it is irreversible ('cannot be undone'), all-or-nothing ('no filter'), requires an API key, and precisely scopes destruction to only intercepted test mail. It also reassures that an empty sandbox is harmless, which aligns with the idempotency hint.

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 five sentences long but every sentence earns its place: the purpose, scope boundaries, reversibility, parameter behavior, and safe-use caution. It front-loads the core action and logically expands from there, with 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 parameterless destructive tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers what is deleted, what is NOT deleted, reversibility, authentication, idempotency behavior, and a clear warning to read data beforehand. No significant gaps remain.

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 has zero parameters, and the description explicitly confirms this: 'Takes no parameters and offers no filter.' It further elaborates the semantic consequence ('all or nothing'), adding meaning beyond the empty schema properties.

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 opens with the direct verb 'Delete' and identifies the precise resource: 'every email captured in the sandbox.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing the sandbox scope and stating it affects only intercepted test mail, never campaigns, inboxes, contacts, or templates.

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 states when to use this tool (to clear intercepted test emails) and provides clear caution: 'Read anything you still need from the sandbox before calling this.' It also notes that clearing an empty sandbox is harmless, offering safe usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like list_sandbox_sends or archive_email, but the scope exclusion is clear.

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