Bootstrap Sandbox Guardrail

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds behavioral context: it is sandbox-only with no live settlement rails. This goes beyond annotations by specifying environmental constraints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with usage context, no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place by defining when to use and when not to use.

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?

The description explains purpose and usage boundaries, and an output schema exists so return values are covered. However, with 6 parameters and no parameter guidance, the description is incomplete for helping an agent correctly populate arguments.

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%, and the description provides no information about the 6 parameters (operation, requested_spend_cents, currency, metadata, evidence_schema, idempotency_key). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 creates a sandbox-only guardrail intent for building/testing first paid-tool integrations, specifying 'no live settlement rails'. It distinguishes from production use and already-created Harbor intents, aligning with the tool's name and title.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (building/testing first integration needing sandbox guardrail) and when not to use (production live money movement, already-created Harbor intents). While it doesn't name sibling tools as alternatives, the exclusions provide clear context.

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