destroy_child

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and a prerequisite, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., destruction is irreversible, what happens to the child's resources), required permissions, or potential errors beyond a generic 'error'. This is insufficient for a destructive tool.

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 two main sentences plus an args/returns section. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a precondition. No unnecessary repetition, though the structure could be more organized.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and there is only one parameter, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks behavioral context (irreversibility, permissions) and does not explain what the confirmation or error entails, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 single parameter 'name' is described as 'Name of the child sandbox to destroy', which adds context beyond the schema's minimal 'Name' field. However, the description lacks details on validation (e.g., must correspond to an existing child) or format, limiting its helpfulness.

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 verb 'Destroy' and the resource 'child sandbox'. It specifies the prerequisite about spawn policy. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'destroy' or 'delete_snapshot', which weakens clarity for an agent selecting among them.

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 a prerequisite ('parent must have a spawn policy') which guides when to use the tool. But it does not include when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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