add_sandbox_mount

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the container is recreated, that a running sandbox restarts with apps unreachable for a few seconds, that asleep and deep-sleep sandboxes behave differently, and that a missing host folder is a Docker error rather than an auto-created folder. It also states the ownership outcome for the sandbox owner.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and access constraint, then side effects and error behavior. It is dense but nearly every sentence adds operational value; the parenthetical about the sandbox's own Docker is slightly tangential.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers access prerequisites, side effects, restart semantics, and error behavior. It omits what the call returns and what readonly actually controls, which keeps it short of complete.

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 50%: host and target are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them. The required 'name' parameter and the 'readonly' flag go unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mount a host folder into the sandbox') and the sibling remove_sandbox_mount makes the direction unambiguous. An agent knows exactly what changes and on which resource.

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 gates usage: 'Admin only, with HOST_MOUNT_ROOTS set' and notes the host path must be at or under one of those roots. It does not compare against other path-exposing siblings such as project_dir_link, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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