e2b_create_sandbox

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description bears the full burden of explaining the side effects of a resource-creation operation, and it reveals nothing about behavior — no mention that this likely launches a virtual sandbox, incurs cost, requires an environment, or that sandboxes auto-pause/resume (despite autoPause/autoResume params existing). The agent is fully in the dark.

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?

At six words, it is technically concise, but this crosses the line from conciseness into under-specification. A single simple sentence with no elaboration is not a strength when the semantic load it must carry is this heavy. This is under-specification, not effective brevity.

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 tool that provisions infrastructure with 9 configurable params, nested objects, and no annotations or output schema, an 6-word description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot understand the sandbox lifecycle, what envVars are used for, default behaviors, or the calling flow without significant external knowledge. Everything is left to inference.

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 only 11%, so the tool description must compensate for 8 underexplained parameters (envVars, autoPause, timeout, autoPauseMemory, allowInternetAccess, etc.). The only parameter the description touches is templateId, and even that is trivial. It provides zero clarity on the configuration contract the agent will need to fill to make a valid call.

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 clear verb and resource ('Create a sandbox') with a scoping hint ('from a template') that maps to the required templateId parameter. However, it is nearly tautological with the tool name and does little to distinguish the tool within the broader sibling set beyond the obvious 'create' verb. The purpose is understandable but minimally so.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like e2b_connect_sandbox, e2b_pause_sandbox, or e2b_refresh_sandbox. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. An agent would have to guess when exactly sandbox creation is appropriate from a 9-parameter config.

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