destroy_sandbox

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states irreversible data loss ('Everything inside is lost') and the financial effect ('stop billing'). This is exactly the critical behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the action and billing effect, second warns about data loss, third gives timing guidance. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is destroyed, that billing stops, that data is irrecoverable, and when to call it. Nothing critical is missing for safe and correct invocation.

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. The description refers to 'a sandbox' but does not explicitly explain that sandbox_id identifies which sandbox to destroy or where to obtain it (e.g., from create_sandbox or list_sandboxes). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('Destroy') and resource ('a sandbox'), and immediately adds the billing consequence, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_sandbox or extend_sandbox. It is clear and direct about the operation performed.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call this as soon as you are finished — do not leave sandboxes running.' This clearly tells the agent when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives like extend_sandbox, but the 'do not leave sandboxes running' phrase implicitly tells the agent not to call it while work is still in progress.

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