set_sleep_settings

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that a new idle_timeout recreates only the socat container, that a running sandbox's app is unreachable for a few seconds while an asleep one stays asleep, and that the value applies to the next request's Sablier session while deep_sleep_after applies immediately. It omits auth/permission requirements and the response shape, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the parameter-level effects, then the underlying HTTP route as a trailing detail. Every sentence carries information; only the raw 'HTTP PATCH /sandboxes/{name}' line is arguably redundant for an agent.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects and timing well but leaves the agent without permission requirements, return-value expectations, or guidance on the 'off'/'0' values that disable sleeping. Adequate but not complete for the annotation-free burden it carries.

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 25% (only 'disk' is documented), so the description must compensate and it partially does by explaining the runtime effect and apply-timing of idle_timeout versus deep_sleep_after. It does not explain the '0'/'off' sentinel values allowed by both patterns, nor the unit conventions beyond the schema examples, so meaningful gaps remain.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change sleep settings') and immediately names the two fields it mutates on an existing sandbox. The sibling set contains sleep_sandbox and deep_sleep_sandbox, and while the 'settings' framing implicitly separates this tool from those actions, the description never explicitly says 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?

Says the fields can be changed 'and/or' on an existing sandbox, which implies a partial-update use case, and explains the differing timing of the two changes. However, it never states when to pick this over sleep_sandbox / deep_sleep_sandbox / keep_sandbox_awake, nor any prerequisites beyond 'existing sandbox'.

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