e2b_set_sandbox_timeout

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It delivers two key insights beyond the tool name: the timeout is relative ('N seconds from now') not absolute, and it overwrites any prior TTL. These are genuinely useful for an agent reasoning about idempotency and repeated calls. Could have added what happens on expiry but is robust for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Two short sentences — no fluff. The core semantic ('N seconds from now') and the side-effect ('overwrites previous TTL') are each given a single sentence. Nothing is missing, nothing is extra.

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 with only 2 parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could briefly mention edge cases like timeout=0 (disable expiry?) or negative values (though schema min=0 handles that), but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the sibling context.

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 coverage is 50% — 'timeout' benefits from an inline schema description, while 'sandboxId' has none. The main description reinforces that 'timeout' is relative ('N seconds from now') and clarifies the overwrite semantics, adding a bit beyond the schema. However, 'sandboxId' semantics are left entirely to inference, and the description doesn't fill that gap.

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 ('Set') + resource ('sandbox timeout') and clarifies the exact behavioral semantics: 'it will expire N seconds from now.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., pause, refresh, delete) which deal with other lifecycle aspects. The scope is unmistakable even without naming a sibling.

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?

While no explicit 'use this instead of X' is provided, the description strongly implies the usage context: call this when you need to set or overwrite a sandbox's expiration TTL. The clarification that it 'overwrites any previous TTL' signals the idempotent/replacement nature. Loses a point for not explicitly routing away from alternatives like e2b_pause_sandbox or e2b_refresh_sandbox, but the intent is clear.

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