Submit Sandbox Guardrail Evidence

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

Annotations already indicate openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about completing simulator settlement or predicate checks but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 only two sentences, both of which are informative and front-loaded with the core purpose. 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 has 8 parameters (including nested objects) and a low schema description coverage, the description provides insufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain what evidence is, how to structure the payload, or how the output schema relates to the tool's behavior.

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 only 38%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., payload, metadata, artifacts, operation, idempotency_key, completion_preset_id, requested_spend_cents). The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 is used when a sandbox guardrail intent needs evidence for simulator settlement or predicate checks. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool paybond_submit_spend_evidence by specifying that the latter is for live Harbor spend evidence.

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 (for sandbox guardrail intent evidence) and when not to use (not for live Harbor spend evidence), and provides the alternative tool name (paybond_submit_spend_evidence).

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