destroy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that destruction is permanent, that the sandbox is not recreated, and that workspace volume is preserved and reattachable. However, it does not mention preconditions (e.g., must be running) or specific error cases.

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 concise with 4 sentences, including a clear purpose statement, contrast with reset, parameter definition, and return value note. No unnecessary words, well-structured, and front-loaded.

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 destroy tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter, and a key behavioral note about volume. An output schema exists for return details, so the description does not need to elaborate further.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It states: 'sandbox: Name of the sandbox to destroy.', which adds basic semantic meaning beyond the schema. For a single parameter, this is adequate but minimal; no format or constraints are provided.

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 tool's purpose: 'Permanently destroy a named sandbox without recreating it.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'reset' by noting that reset destroys and reboots, while this just kills. Specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit contrast with reset ('Unlike reset (which destroys and reboots), this just kills it.'), indicating when to use this tool instead of reset. It also mentions workspace volume preservation, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or other alternative tools beyond reset.

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