Submit Sandbox Guardrail Evidence

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context about purpose (simulator settlement/predicate checks) but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or what happens after submission. Adequate but not rich.

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 purpose and usage guidance. No unnecessary information. Efficient and clear.

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 has 8 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the primary use case but lacks details on optional parameters, error scenarios, or supplementary context. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for complex usage.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain any parameters beyond implying intent_id. With 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is for submitting evidence for sandbox guardrail intents to complete simulator settlement or predicate checks, and distinguishes itself from paybond_submit_spend_evidence for production use.

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 states when to use (sandbox guardrail intent needs evidence) and when not to use (live Harbor spend evidence), and directs to an alternative tool. Provides clear context and exclusion.

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