sandbox_distribution_completed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the main effect (release moves to 'completed' state) and that it is a simulation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, whether the state change is reversible, prerequisites (e.g., must be in an 'ordered' state), or error behavior, which are important for a state-changing 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the sandbox/testing nature and clearly states the action and result. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it is idempotent, or what state prerequisites exist. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool, but for a sandbox simulation tool, the description is minimally sufficient.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter 'id' with the description 'Release ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose: simulating distribution completion, which moves the release to 'completed' state. It uses a specific verb ('Simulate') and resource ('distribution'), and the state change is explicit. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling sandbox tools like sandbox_distribution_ordered.

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 includes '[SANDBOX/TESTING ONLY]', which clearly indicates it is intended for testing environments and not production use. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The context is sufficient but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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