Bootstrap Sandbox Guardrail

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (non-destructive, open world). The description adds little beyond stating it's sandbox-only with no settlement rails. No contradictions, but more behavioral context (e.g., what happens on failure) would help.

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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary usage scenario, immediately telling the agent when to invoke the tool.

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 availability of an output schema and the tool's focused purpose (sandbox guardrail), the description provides sufficient context. It could be improved by briefly mentioning the required parameters (operation, requested_spend_cents).

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 50% description coverage (2 out of 6 are described in schema). The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning, failing to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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: creating a sandbox-only guardrail intent for first paid-tool integration. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from production usage, making it clear to an agent.

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 (building/testing first integration) and when not to use (production live money movement, already-created Harbor intents). However, it does not name specific alternative sibling tools, which would improve score.

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